Sitting of 24 June 1857

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Consolidated Fund (£8,000,000); Hanley Borough Incorporation.
JUDGMENTS EXECUTION BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  Clause Seven:—Amendment again proposed, to add at the end of the clause the words "and may set aside, satisfy, or otherwise deal with it accordingly."
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he would appeal to the hon. and learned Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd) to postpone the Committee until after the other orders of the day. A large number of Irish Members who took an interest in this Bill were at present at Cambridge House upon a deputation to Lord Palmerston on the subject of tenant right, and it would scarcely be fair to proceed with the Bill in their absence. He moved that the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again.
  MR. CRAUFURDregretted he could not accede to the request of his hon. Friend, since the passing of the Bill might thereby be endangered.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, there was no Member on the Treasury bench to throw light on the important question which this Bill raised. This, he thought, was an additional reason for postponement.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 31; Noes 93: Majority 62.
  Question again proposed.
  MR. STAFFORDsaid, he must express his regret that none of the law officers of the Crown were in their places. In their absence he thought the Government could hardly wish to proceed with a Bill of this importance.
  MR. MASSEY(who at this moment was the only occupant of the Ministerial benches) observed, that the principle and the details of the measure had been over and over again considered by this House, and if at this time hon. Members were so little acquainted with those details as to require the attendance of the law officers of the Crown, in order to explain them, he should despair of making much progress. He trusted, therefore, that the Committee would proceed with the Bill.
  MR. NAPIERsaid, he wanted to know if the Government had adopted the Bill as it stood, because in this case he should be prepared to show that it would prove wholly unworkable in Ireland. In the absence of the law officers of the Crown, however, he thought the Committee were but wasting time by entering into a discussion of the details. As to himself, he had no desire to obstruct the progress of the Bill, but he wished to put it into a form in which it would work.
  MR. DEASYsaid, that he also quite concurred in the principle of the measure, and was only anxious to render the Bill as perfect as possible. He, therefore, regretted that none of the law officers of the Crown were present to assist the Committee.
  MR. MASSEYsaid, the Attorney Generals for England and Ireland had sat on the Committee to which the Bill had been referred, and the latter hon. and learned Gentleman had been present at the discussion on the first clause.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, it had already been announced, upon high authority, that this Bill would throw the law of Ireland into great confusion. He found also that there were notices of no less than forty Amendments on the paper. Were the Committee to reject or adopt them, without being informed by the proper authority of their probable effect? It was preposterous, therefore, that they should proceed in the absence of the law

  307
  officers of the Crown. He hoped that the Bill would he postponed until the Attorney General for Ireland at least was in his place.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he also would urge that the further consideration of the Bill be postponed. He also wished to remark, that when the Bill was under consideration last Session, the Attorney General for Ireland proposed an Amendment, which was carried. The promoter of the Bill then said he should withdraw it, to enable him to consider the effect of the Amendment. On the first night of the Session the hon. Gentleman re-introduced the measure, announcing that he had adopted the Amendment of the Attorney General; and yet, when they came to examine the Bill, they found that the Amendment only applied to Ireland, and not to Scotland. The Amendment was to the effect, that a copy of the judgment sought to be put in force, and not an extract therefrom, should be placed before the Court.
  An Hon. MEMBER wished to ask the legal meaning of the word "extract."
  THE LORD ADVOCATEexplained that the word "extract" meant, in the legal phraseology of Scotland, a copy, the extraction implied by the term being an extraction from the office, and not from the document.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that the effect of the Bill as it now stood would be, that a party could bring a writ of error in one country to reverse proceedings taken in another.
  MR. BLANDsaid, the question just raised by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) was most important. He (Mr. Bland) was certainly surprised to hear that the word "extract" meant a whole copy. He thought that they should not proceed with this Bill till the phraseology of the Scotch courts was made somewhat more similar than it now was to that of England and Ireland. Certainly, he could not consent to its being proceeded with in the absence of the Attorney General for Ireland.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, they had already wasted an hour and a half in the attempt of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Craufurd) to force this Bill down their throats. He assured the hon, and learned Member, however, that the attempt would not be successful, whether he was backed by the influence of the Government or not.
  MR. M'MAHONcited some old Acts of Parliament to prove that "extract" did not mean "a copy."
  MR. PACKEsaid, he thought it was very like an act of tyranny for the English and Scotch Members to attempt to force down the throats of the Irish Members a Bill to which they were unanimous in opposition. The absence of the Attorney General for Ireland made it still more unfair to press this Bill against the will of the Irish Members. Under these circumstances, he begged to move that the Chairman do leave the Chair.
  MR. STEUARTsaid, he considered the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier) to place judgments under this Bill on the same footing as protested Bills, was a most valuable one. If the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd) would not agree to consider it, he should support the Motion of the hon. Member for Leicestershire (Mr. Packe).
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 103: Majority 30.
  Question again proposed.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he thought that the hon. Member for Ayr was not justified in any longer attempting to force his measure through the House when the division that had just taken place showed, notwithstanding all the assistance given to the hon. Member by the Government, so slight a difference between the numbers on each side. He therefore moved that the Chairman should report progress.
  MR. GRIFFITHbegged to say that the defeat of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leicestershire was not entirely owing to the opposition of Her Majesty's Government and their supporters. Many independent Members on his (Mr. Griffith's) side of the House had voted against the Amendment.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that the Irish Members were agreed as to the principle of the Bill, but that the differences were principally with respect to matters of detail. He suggested that if the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. Deasy) was adopted it would remove many objections. Some Irish Members opposed the Bill because they considered it a step towards amalgamating the judicature of the two countries. In his opinion, such an amalgamation would be most unwise, and if he

  309
  believed the Bill to have the slightest tendency that way he would oppose it. He, therefore, hoped that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not press his Motion.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he was willing to withdraw all opposition to the Bill, if the clauses placing Scotch decreets on the same footing with judgments of the English and Irish Courts were struck out. He had not the slightest objection, but the contrary, to assimilate in all respects the proceedings of the English and Irish Courts of Law; but it was quite another matter to assimilate the Scotch proceedings, which were so dissimilar—in fact, in many respects so opposed to those of England and Ireland.
  MR. AYRTONthought, that after the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman, some course might be pursued of a more satisfactory character than that of reporting progress. He would suggest that the objectionable clauses of the Bill be allowed to go through Committee pro formâ with a view to their being printed with the Amendments, and that the Amendments be discussed on the next stage of the measure.
  MR. P. O'BRIENsaid, the learned Solicitor General was much mistaken in supposing that almost the whole of the Irish Members were in favour of the principles of the Bill. The only Irish Member in the last Parliament who supported the Bill lost his seat in consequence of that support.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALadmitted that it would be an advantage if the practice of edictal citation were expunged from the Scotch law, as it was unknown to that of England. But as the clause in the Bill for enforcing Scotch decreets in Ireland was to be guarded against being applied in such cases, he did not think it necessary that the Bill should be re-committed.
  SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, that seeing the determined opposition offered to the Bill, he recommended the hon. Member for Ayr to press it no further, to rest satisfied with having obtained the assent of the House to its general principle, and to throw on the Government the responsibility of bringing it forward as a Government measure. It was utterly impossible for any mere private Member to carry a Bill, however good, through the House if a large proportion of hon. Members were opposed to it. His judicial experience in India satisfied him that the principle of the Bill was sound. He hoped that the Chairman
  310
  might be allowed to report progress, in order that no more time might be wasted in fruitless discussion.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, that the opposition to the Bill was directed against its principles quite as much as its details. He also denied that his constituents were at all interested in the opposition to the Bill. It was true that Wexford had a large trade with Glasgow, but he believed that the balance was in favour of Wexford. He opposed the Bill simply on the ground that it was a violation of the fundamental principles of English law. If the Government were anxious for any real reform why did they not attempt to improve the Scotch law.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 141: Majority 91.
  Question again proposed,
  MR. BLANDsaid, that as a question might arise as to which Court should have jurisdiction in the matter of these judgments, he thought it would be better to express clearly that the Court in which the judgment was to be registered, and out of which execution was intended to be issued, should have the jurisdiction over the question, not only in points which might arise subsequent to the execution, but also as to the question whether the judgment had been obtained by fraud or not. The hon. Member then proposed an Amendment to that effect.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he did not think, the Amendment necessary, but he would not object to it.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8.
  COLONEL FRENCHhoped that the Committee, now that it had devoted nearly three hours to Scotch law without any prospect of arriving at a useful result, would proceed to the other business on the paper. He moved that the Chairman report progress.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to repeat his former suggestion that the clauses should now be gone through, pro formâ, in order that further discussion should be postponed till the bringing up of the report.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that he approved the solution indicated by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, and would promise that if the Bill were passed through Committee pro formâ, he and his

  311
  learned Friends connected with the Government would, in the interval previous to the bringing up of the Report, confer with the author of the Bill to see whether such Amendments might, not be made in the details of the measure as would obviate the objections taken to it.
  MR. P. O'BRIENremarked, that he hoped the Report would not be brought up when the Irish Members were obliged to absent themselves from the House in order to attend the assizes.
  MR. CRAUFURDobserved he had no wish to steal a march upon the Irish Members.
  MR. SPOONERsaid, he was afraid the Bill would give rise to collusive judgments, but thought it would be better, under the circumstances, to throw the responsibility of amending it upon the Government.
  MR. GROGANwould recommend that, as the assizes would commence very shortly, and last for about six weeks, the measure should be suspended for the present Session.
  MR. CRAUFURDproposed to fix the Report for Monday.
  MR. M'CANNsaid, that while reserving his right to offer a strenuous opposition to the Bill, he would advise the withdrawal of the Motion for reporting progress, seeing that the Government were virtually about to take charge of the measure.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he should be sorry if the Amendment were withdrawn under any misconception as to the intentions of the Government. The pledge given by the Lord Advocate amounted to this, that the law officers of the Crown would render their best assistance to the hon. Member for Ayr in endeavouring to devise such Amendments as might carry out the views expressed on both sides during that day's discussion. It ought, however, to be distinctly understood that the Government would not thereby adopt this Bill as their own.
  SIR ERSKINE PERRYobserved, that he thought the course recommended by the Lord Advocate a judicious one. It would practically be equivalent to postponing legislation on this subject for another year.
  MR. GROGANcomplained that this was one of a series of attempts made, year after year, to force a highly objectionable measure on a reluctant Legislature. Either the Government approved this measure, or they did not. In the former case, they
  312
  ought to bring in the Bill themselves; in the latter, they ought not to give an ambiguous sanction to tinkering efforts of this kind.
  COLONEL FRENCHbegged leave to withdraw his Motion.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he must refuse to assent to the Bill going through Committee pro formâ, unless it was understood that it was to be recommitted.
  MR. HILDYARDsaid, he feared that if they were to pass pro formâ a Bill which contained a number of provisions to which many hon. Members objected, the result would be inextricable confusion. Under the circumstances, he thought that the wisest course would he to abandon all hopes of passing the Bill in the present Session. It was the fashion now to refer almost every measure to next year, and he saw no reason why this should not be added to the long catalogue of Bills which were then to receive the serious consideration of Parliament.
  MR. GROGANasked the hon. and learned Member for Ayr whether he would give a distinct pledge that if the Bill went through Committee pro formâ now it should be recommitted? If he would not do so, he (Mr. Grogan) should appeal to the Government to take that course with the Bill.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid that, if it should appear to the Government that the alterations which it would be necessary to make in the Bill, were of such a nature as to require that it should be recommitted, he would, of course, recommend that that step should be adopted; but if the alterations should not be of that description he would not do so.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he saw no prospect of coming to a satisfactory arrangement, and he should therefore go on with his opposition to the Bill. Clause 8 was the one now before the Committee, and he should move as an Amendment that it be struck out.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, this clause, together with the 7th clause, was draughted by the Attorney General for Ireland to obviate the possibility of obtaining collusive judgments, and because it would remove, as that right hon. Gentleman stated, a great objection.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, that was only a reason the more why the clause should be struck out of the Bill.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALwould support the clause.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That Clause Eight stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 196; Noes 38: Majority 158.
  Clause added.
  Clause 9.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he bad foregone his Motion to report progress on the understanding that the Bill should be recommitted; but as the Lord Advocate would not pledge himself to that effect, he (Colonel French) considered that it would be better the Bill should be referred to the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General for England and the Attorney General for Ireland, as it was originally suggested; and, therefore, under these circumstances, he (Colonel French) would renew the Motion, unless a distinct pledge was given by the Government, and move that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  MR. ADAMSsaid, he thought it would be better to postpone the Bill for the purpose of permitting other business to go on. There was much that was valuable in the measure, though it was so strongly opposed by Members for Ireland, and he, as an English Member, would suggest that it should be tried in England and Scotland, and that Ireland should at first be excepted from its operation, since, if it were found to work well in the former countries, it might be extended to Ireland in another Session. If the Bill was pressed on, all other business would be suspended in the present temper of hon. Members for Ireland.
  MR. M'CANNsaid, the Bill was said to be intended to make the Irish pay their debts; but he (Mr. M'Cann) contended that they did pay their debts both to their creditors and the Treasury. He was satisfied either to let the Bill go for consideration to the Government, as was suggested, or to adopt the proposition of the hon. Member, and let its provisions be applied to England alone.
  MR. AYRTONhoped the hon. Member for Ayr would give way, as the question of time was so decidedly against him. The Committee had been four hours debating, and no advance had been made with the Bill.
  MR. BLANDsaid, he thought the compromise of the hon. Member for Roscommon ought to be adopted, and he considered it would be no great misfortune if the Bill was postponed until next Session.
  MR. GRIFFITHsaid, he thought the proposition of the Irish Members was a reasonable one, and ought to be accepted.
  MR. GROGANsaid, the hon. Member had pressed on his Bill year after year, and each Session the objectionable clauses were eliminated. The Bill was then before the House for the fifth or sixth time, and yet no progress had been made with it. The Irish Members, in order to avoid factious opposition, had acceded to a compromise to refer the Bill to a conclave; but this consent having been obtained an attempt was made to steal a march by the promoters of the Bill, and to advance it another stage. By this means the Irish Members were deprived of the opportunity of proposing their Amendments on the 8th clause, which had slipped through the Committee in consequence of this arrangement. It was, therefore, incumbent on the Irish Members to take the course proposed by the hon. Member for Roscommon, which was the straightforward and open course.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 54; Noes 175: Majority 121.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he would propose an Amendment in the ninth clause, with the view of providing that instead of "an extract'' of a Scotch decreet the "copy" of the decreet should be required to be filed with the registering officer. The hon. Member contended that by the "extract of a decreet" the Court could know nothing of the merits of the question, and quoted a form of "extract" for the purpose of showing that it afforded no sufficient information. In liou of the words "extract of a decreet," he proposed, by way of Amendment, to insert the words, "authenticated copy of a decreet."
  MR. MALINSadvised the promoters of the Bill to accede to the Amendment, in order to save time. He was surprised to have heard all factious opposition to this Bill disclaimed, for he considered the opposition factious after the sense of the House in favour of the Bill had been decidedly ascertained. He must say that the present Amendment had been proposed for factious purposes.
  COLONEL FRENCH COLONEL FRENCH rose to order.
  MR. MALINSsaid, if the expression were disorderly he would immediately retract it.
  COLONEL FRENCHappealed to the Chairman of the Committee to declare whether it was not disorderly to impute factious motives to any hon. Member?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that he understood the hon. and learned Member retracted the expression.
  MR. MALINSobserved that he had done so instantly. He understood that previously to his (Mr. Malins') entering the House the hon. Member, who was not actuated by "factious" motives, read the very documents which he had just now read, in opposition to the present clause, and that a suggestion to make the Bill operative in England and not in Ireland, so that the English Courts would be bound to pay every respect to an Irish judgment, but the Irish Courts would pay no respect to an English judgment, had been thrown out although approved by the Irish Members. He appealed to the House to decide whether, after the House had given a plain and distinct opinion in favour of the Bill, a small minority should be allowed to obstruct its progress by repeated divisions either on mere words or mere forms? He understood that the "extract" was precisely the same as the "copy," and he asked the hon. Member in charge of the Bill to accept the change of words, and so avoid giving trouble to the House and mortification to the hon. and learned proposer of the Amendment, who would otherwise undoubtedly be placed in a miserably small minority.
  MR. HILDYARDsaid, he had never heard a more extraordinary speech than that of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Malins). The hon. and learned Member for Wexford, in the exercise of an undoubted right, proposed the substitution of certain words in the clause. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Malins) said that if the hon. and learned Member for Wexford pressed his Amendment to a division he would find himself in a "miserable minority," and yet the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Malins) recommended the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd) to accept the Amendment. He (Mr. Hildyard) thought, if there was any waste of the time of the House, it was not attributable to the hon. and learned Gentleman who had moved the Amendment, and he hoped they would hear no more lectures from the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford.
  MR. ADAMSsaid, that the suggestion
  316
  he had thrown out was that it would be advisable to except Ireland from the operation of the Bill, considering the unanimous opposition which was offered to it by the Irish Members. He had thrown out this suggestion with perfect good faith.
  Mr. GROGANsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford seemed to be exceedingly anxious that this Bill should be disposed of, in order that he might bring on a measure in which he was himself interested.
  MR. MALINSbegged to observe that he had said nothing of the kind.
  MR. GROGANobserved that he had not stated that the hon. and learned Member had said so, but he saw that the hon. and learned Gentleman was interested in a Bill which stood lower upon the Notices, and on that account he supposed that he was anxious that this measure should be got rid of as speedily as possible.
  MR. MALINSsaid, it was true that he felt interested in a Bill which stood for discussion that day, but his only anxiety was to throw it out.
  MR. GROGANsaid, that he and many other representatives of Ireland were merely availing themselves of the forms of the House to oppose this Bill; and were the "miserable minority" of Irish Members who would be affected by the measure, and who strongly objected to it, to be prevented from exercising their constitutional privileges?
  COLONEL FRENCHobserved that with reference to the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford, that the opinion of the majority of the House had been repeatedly given in favour of the Bill, he would beg to remind him that the representatives of Ireland entertained an almost unanimous opinion with regard to this measure, and that they had determined to do everything to prevent it passing into law, and he thought it a matter of complaint that they were outvoted on divisions by hon. Gentlemen who had not heard the discussion, but who rushed from the library and the lobbies to give their votes.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, that nothing he had ever done in the House justified the imputation of factious motives. The hon. and learned Member for Wallingford was the last who ought to make such an imputation on him.
  MR. BLANDsaid, he must protest

  317
  against the conduct of the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford. He came down to the consideration of a Bill of which he knew nothing, and made personal imputations, and then, while pretending to withdraw his offensive phrase, repeated it by his tone and manner.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, his hon. Friend had spoken of the unanimity of the Irish Members in protecting the interests of Ireland; but it would appear that they had not only taken the interests of Ireland under their protection, but the interests of England and Scotland also. He (the Solicitor General) had been in the House some hours, and he must say that as yet he had not heard a single tangible objection to the measure; whilst the entire discussion had been totally beside any objection. His hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon (Colonel French) told them that there was a determination on the part of the Irish Members to throw out the Bill; but whether that determination was carried out or not, the Committee was certainly placed in a very unpleasant position. Hon. Members undoubtedly possessed the power of availing themselves of the forms of the House for the purpose of obstructing this, or similar measures which came before them, but the use of that power was not at all times an exhibition that was either very creditable to the House or beneficial to the public. He did not mean to complain of any hon. Gentleman for exercising his constitutional right as a Member of that House; he thought, however, that if they could put an end to the difficulty in which they seemed now to be placed, it would be alike for the benefit of the public interest and the credit of their own proceedings. He would suggest, therefore, to his hon. Friend (Mr. Craufurd), who had charge of the Bill, that, upon the Amendment being withdrawn, he should consent to the Chairman reporting progress and the House resuming.
  MR. NAPIERsaid, his hon. and learned Friend had observed that he had not heard one tangible objection to the Bill. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL: Not to-day.] He would be sorry to oppose any bill to which his hon. and learned Friend thought there was "no tangible objection." But there were objections to the measure before the Committee, and his (Mr. Napier's)—and it had not yet been answered—was, that the effect of the Bill would be to enable parties to get judgments in one country and use them in another; to hold out an inducement
  318
  especially in the case of small traders to obtain a judgment in Ireland for a secret warrant of attorney, but which is intended to be executed in England, or a judgment in England to be executed in Ireland. The machinery of the Bill was, in his opinion, peculiarly adapted to facilitate that class of judgments, and that was an evil which the mercantile community would be disposed to regard with very great apprehension. This, however, was a matter to be amicably agreed upon out of rather than in that House; but, in his view, the most simple and advantageous mode of proceeding would be to make an affidavit of debt, obtain judgment in the country where the debtor resided, and then to sue out execution. A provision such as that would go far to remove his objection to the Bill; for, as it now stood, no notice whatever would be given in the country where the execution was levied. Secret executions coming down suddenly and at the moment when not anticipated were what the commercial community above all things dreaded. He should be glad to render all the assistance in his power to make the Bill as perfect as possible, but he should be sorry to urge any objection that was not a reasonable or tangible one. His other objection to the Bill was its centralizing tendency.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, there had been an understanding that the Bill should pass through Committee, and that the Amendments should be proposed upon the Report. That understanding had been violated. He should, therefore, move that the Chairman, report progress and ask leave to sit again, on the understanding that his hon. Friend, withdrew his Amendment. He should take the first open Wednesday to proceed with the Bill.
  The House resumed. Committee report progress; to sit again on Wednesday, 15th July.

  SCIENTIFIC AND LITERARY SOCIETIES BILL—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  Clause 1,
  MR. JOHN LOCKE MR. JOHN LOCKE moved the omission of the words repealing the 6th section of 6 & 7 Vict. c. 36.
  MR. HUTTdid not object to the Amendment; which was adopted, and the clause was agreed to.
  Clause 2, Buildings, &c., occupied exclusively by any Society instituted "for

  319
  purposes of Science, Literature, Education, or the Arts," shall not be rated to county rates or cesses.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, he rose to move that the word "education" be omitted from the clause. It might be said that institutions for purposes of education ought clearly to come within the provisions of a measure of this nature; but he thought that no particular parish or district should be unduly taxed, in order to exempt establishments of this description. He had presented two petitions on this subject from the parish of St. George the Martyr, Southwark, which was peculiarly situated, as it comprised within its precincts the Deaf and Dumb Asylum, the Blind School, Bethlehem Hospital—to which a school was attached, the Magdalen Hospital, the Queen's Bench Prison, the Marshalsea, the Southwark Literary Institution, the Borough-road schools, the Yorkshire schools, the national parochial schools, six ragged schools, and a great number of schools which were not self-supporting. All these establishments were partially or entirely exempted from rates, and when he stated that out of 7,000 rated houses within the borough, 4,000 were below the rateable value of £10 a year, the Committee would see that it was a great hardship upon the poorer inhabitants that so large a portion of the area of the parish should be relieved from liability to rates, and a more severe pressure created upon them as would be the case if this clause passed in its present form. And as it was inexpedient to push the principle of exemption any farther, he hoped that the Committee would assent to his Amendment.
  MR. SPOONERsaid, he was disposed to go further in amending the clause than the hon. Member who last addressed the Committee, and to contend not only that buildings occupied for purposes of "education," but also buildings occupied for purposes of "science and literature" should be debarred the privilege of exemption from the payment of rates, which the clause as it stood gave to them.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he could see no reason why the Committee should alter the existing law in the manner proposed by this clause. The law as it stood at present laid it down that buildings erected for the purpose of teaching science, literature, or the fine arts, and occupied by any society exclusively for those objects, were to be exempted from the payment
  320
  of rates. But this Bill went a great deal further than that, for it declared by implication, if not in terms, that so long as any society instituted for any of those purposes occupied a building, such building need not be at all confined to the objects of the society. For example, a society instituted for the promotion of the fine arts might devote their premises to the purpose of a club, which would be exempt from the payment of rates by the clause under consideration. He did not see why the Athenæum might not be exempted under the operation of such a clause. He could not understand, indeed, why premises devoted to scientific, literary, educational, or artistic purposes were to be exempted at all from the payment of rates, and he warned the House that if they went on from year to year multiplying exemptions of this kind, and applying that principle to this building and the other, there would be eventually no end to exemptions. The result would be that a kind of reaction would set in, and they would have the whole of their exemptions swept away. Instead of supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. John Locke) he would rather move, as a better way of meeting the question, that the clause be entirely expunged.
  SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, he perfectly agreed with the hon. Member for Southwark, and he hoped the President of the Poor Law Board would interpose to protect the parochial rates all over the country from the inroad which this Bill would make upon them. He would remind the Committee that there could not be an exemption from taxation without somebody else being taxed to make up the deficiency, and that the money given up in consequence of those exemptions must be raised some-where. Why, under the very next clause in the Bill to the one under consideration any of the societies in question might make money of their property, and yet be exempt from the payment of rates. Besides, if this Bill passed into a law, all parishes where such buildings were likely to be established would look with suspicion upon them. He submitted that the Committee would do wisely to pause before proceeding further in legislation of that character, and to enable them to do so, he begged to move that the Chairman do now leave the Chair.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, having been appealed to by the hon. Baronet who last addressed the Committee, he was bound to say that, though he did not offer

  321
  any opposition to the second reading of this Bill, he entirely concurred in the grounds on which it was now opposed by the hon. Baronet; and he might state to the Committee that in the last Parliament, when a similar measure to this was brought under the consideration of the House, he objected very strongly to the extending exemptions of this kind, and endeavoured to persuade the House that they were wrong in principle. It was true the House had already admitted these exemptions to a certain extent, but he thought the time had arrived when they ought to make a stand against the multiplication of them. He might add that the practice under the existing law, though that law had not been long in operation, had already given rise to litigation. He understood it was the practice for the certifying barrister to give a certificate of exemption to literary and scientific societies when they were entitled to exemption—he would not say indiscriminately, but, at least, with no great discrimination as to the right of exemption—and hence suits had been brought before the Superior Courts of common law with the view to determine what constituted a right to exemption in. particular cases. That kind of litigation had been increased by attempts having been made to extend the area of exemption. For instance, he believed there was recently a case before the Court of Queen's Bench which turned on the question whether a society, called a literary society, but whose premises had been devoted to theatrical representations, could claim exemption under the existing law; but the court very properly, in his opinion, held that the certificate of exemption given in that case by the certifying barrister was invalid, inasmuch as the society did not appear to be one contemplated by the Act of Parliament. For these reasons he should join in supporting the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Heathcote) if he persisted in his Motion for reporting progress. But he could not support the Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner), inasmuch as literary and scientific institutions now enjoyed exemption from rates, and it would be unjust by a side wind to deprive such institutions of an advantage which they now enjoyed.
  MR. PULLERsaid he wished to remind the Committee that by the Poor Law Act of Elizabeth the amount of property occupied by a man was considered as the measure of his ability to pay. He submitted
  322
  that the case brought under the consideration of the Committee by the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. John Locke) was an exceptional one, and that when they came to look at the 12,000 parishes of England they would be of opinion with him (Mr. Puller) that it was clearly for the benefit of each of those parishes that a public school should exist in every one of them, and that no obstruction by legislation or otherwise ought to be thrown in the way of the education given in such schools, He contended that educational institutions in particular had an especial claim to an exemption of this kind. If a distinction could be drawn, he would say it was only the wealthy who were specially interested in the fine arts, but it was the poor who were mainly concerned in public educational institutions, and it was for that reason that he could not fall in with the suggestion made by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner). But at the same time, all experience and all history showed that the advancement of a nation was identical with its progress in the fine arts and in science, literature, and education; and he held that societies established for the promotion of those objects were, above all others, entitled to the countenance and consideration of the House.
  MR. NAPIERsaid, he thought it was an inconvenient course when a Bill, as in this case, had been read a second time, and the Committee were considering one of its clauses, that they should entertain objections to its principle and should discuss the whole code of exemptions. The principle on which this Bill was founded, was that institutions established for a public object, and from which no private benefit was derived, should be exempted from rating. That principle had been recognized in another measure which had recently been passed; and as long as that measure continued unrepealed he did not see how the Bill before the Committee could be legitimately opposed.
  MR. W. EWARTsaid, he should support the clause as it stood, as he contended that the more the people were educated the less pauperism there would be. He would also submit that the Bill was of a remedial character merely, and intended to supply defects in an existing Act, and that consideration ought to disarm all opposition to it from either side of the House.
  MR. DRUMMONDsaid, he was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. W. Ewart) repeat the fallacy, long ago exploded, that there was any necessary connection between pauperism and the want of education. Why, did any one ever hear that a man's stomach was filled by reading a page of Homer or of Virgil? Education had nothing whatever; to do with pauperism. A man did not starve because he was uneducated, but because he had nothing to eat. Let the Committee observe the extent to which they were going. There was not a single parish in the country that had not at least one, if not four or five places of education, and by this Bill all those parish schools were to be exempt from the payment of rates. Then, again, the house of the schoolmaster was to be exempt. ["No, no!"] Then, if his house was not to be exempt they must increase his pay. He contended that this was a most foolish measure, and that institutions which had produced the greatest amount of public benefit, such, for example, as the Royal Agricultural Society, the British Institution, the Society of Arts, and the Society of Painters in Water Colours, were precisely those which had never recived one farthing of the public money. He believed that in this, as in many other cases, the more there was paid, the less was there obtained.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 100: Majority 24.
  House resumed; Committee report progress; to sit again on Wednesday 15th July.

THE ROCHDALE ELECTION.

  REPORT BROUGHT UP.
  MR. HENLEY, the Chairman of the Select Committee appointed on Friday last to consider the allegations contained in the petition of Mr. John Newal, touching an attempt to corrupt a witness summoned to give evidence before the Rochdale Election Committee, brought up the Report of the Committee, and as the hon. Gentleman laid it on the table there were cries of "Read, read!" from both sides of the House.
  Sir DENIS LE MARCHANTthereupon read the Report as follows:—
  324
  "The SELECT COMMITTEE appointed to inquire into the Matter of the PETITION of John Newall, and to report their opinion thereupon to the House," and to whom the PETITION of John Newall and the evidence taken at the Bar of the House were referred—have considered the Matters to them referred, and have agreed to the following Report:—
  "That Peter Johnson, mentioned in the Petition of John Newall, was not produced before your Committee; and it appeared that he had not been arrested under the warrant issued against him, although every means had been taken to find him, both at Rochdale and in London.
  Your Committee find that by the direction of John Newall, the agent for the Petition against the return of Sir Alexander Ramsay, Abraham Rothwell was upon the 12th of May last served with a Speaker's warrant to attend to give evidence before the Rochdale Election Committee.
  "That the fact of Abraham Rothwell being a person likely to be examined as a witness on the hearing of the said Petition became known in Rochdale, and was before the 18th of June inst. known to John Lord.
  "That the aforesaid Peter Johnson, having recently come to London, did, on the morning of Thursday, the 18th inst., personally apply to John Lord for the address of Abraham Rothwell, and from what passed at their interview John Lord became aware that Peter Johnson's object in desiring to communicate with Rothwell was connected with the Rochdale Election, and he requested Lord to tell Rothwell that if Rothwell intended to leave the country he (Johnson) would find him money to the extent of £50.
  "That, accordingly by the agency of John Lord, Peter Johnson and Abraham Rothwell met on the evening of Thursday, the 18th inst., when Peter Johnson, in the presence and hearing of John Lord, offered Abraham Rothwell to provide money for his use to the amount of £50 if he would leave England and go to America.
  "From the circumstances already stated the necessary inference would seem to be that the object of Peter Johnson in so acting as aforesaid was to prevent Abraham Rothwell's being examined on the trial of the Election Petition, and that such purpose of Johnson's was known to John Lord. But the evidence was so inconclusive, and the manner of the witnesses in giving their testimony so unsatisfactory, that the Committee are unable to state this inference as being the clear result of their investigation.
  "Your Committee desire to add that nothing appeared in the evidence before your Committee to connect the sitting Member or his agents with the transactions in question; and, in conclusion, your Committee have to report that they carefully abstain from prosecuting any inquiries into matters not strictly included within the limits of the reference made to them, because of their apprehension that they might trench on the proper duties of the Election Committee, and prejudice the rights of parties not represented before them."
  The Report to lie on the table, and to be printed.
  The House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock.