Sitting of 20 June 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Oxford University (No. 2); Railway Cheap Trains, &c; Dealers in Marine Stores.
2°. Professional Oaths Abolition; Highways (South Wales); Stipendiary Magistrates; Inland Bonding.

PROFESSIONAL OATHS ABOLITION BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. W. EWART, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said that the oaths intended to be abolished were unnecessary. There were a number of ancient statutes which imposed the obligation of an oath upon three professions—those of law, physic, and schoolmasters. They could be traced back to the times of James II, and William and Mary. The oaths imposed on lawyers remained. Physicians and surgeons had emancipated themselves, and with regard to schoolmasters the oaths had become obsolete. The principle of the Bill was, that in all cases where there was

  729
  no judicial offices, or office of trust, the professional oath ought to be withdrawn, but that where there was such office an oath should still be taken. He did not object to the oath of allegiance; but beyond that, as a general rule, no oath ought to be required. It might be said that in the oath of supremacy persons were asked to swear to an untruth, when they declared that no one had any spiritual jurisdiction or authority in this country. Putting aside the Roman Catholics, the Moravians—a body which had been regarded with great favour since the time of George II.—had a spiritual head at Hernhutt in Germany; and, therefore, no Moravian could truly make that declaration. Lord Campbell, in his Life of Lord Chancellor Harcourt, and Mr. Hallam, in his 2nd vol. of his Constitutional History, adopted the view that it would be more consonant with the dignity of the Crown that the duty of the subject should be testified simply by taking the oath of allegiance. Unnecessary oaths tempted to perjury. Those whose consciences were not sufficiently tender would violate such oaths. As the poet said—
  "These will recant vows made in pain, as violent and void."
  If the effect of these oaths was to prevent one honest man from entering an honourable profession, it was the duty of the House to relieve him. Believing this to be a reasonable measure, he confidently asked the House to give it a second reading.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the Bill had stood for the second reading about five weeks previously. The House was then very full, and he felt rather surprised when the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart) postponed it for a month, but he naturally came to the conclusion that the hon. Member did not intend to persevere with it. It now, however, appeared that he did propose to go on with it. It was a great inconvenience to hon. Members that the House should sit in the day time on Wednesday, the day on which Her Majesty held her levée, as it was impossible for a Member to attend to his duty there, and at the same time to pay his dutiful respects to Her Majesty. It was the third attempt this Session to break up the settlement effected in 1858; but, looking to the state of the House at that moment, particularly to his own side of it (there were but two Members on the Opposition benches), he would not discuss it then, but would give
  730
  notice that on going into Committee he would move that the Bill be committed that day six months.
  MR. A. MILLSsaid, the question was simply one of legal reform. The alteration proposed had nothing to do with the settlement of 1858, but was recommended by the benchers of the Temple ten years before, and had been supported by many high legal authorities. He regretted that the hon. Member for Dumfries retained the oath of allegiance in certain cases, but if that were thought desirable it would not, in his opinion, be a serious blot upon the Bill. Those oaths provided no real security, and only tended to degrade that sense of responsibility which persons entering professions or offices of high civil trust would feel if they were left to their own individual convictions. Instead of running any risk of imperilling that sense of moral responsibility by abolishing these restrictions, he hoped they would inaugurate a far better era in our history.
  MR. DENMANsaid, of all the odd reasons he had ever heard against discussing a Bill, those advanced by the hon. Member for North Warwick were the oddest. If there was any force in them, they would lead to the conclusion that the House should not sit at all on that day. It was not true that the question had been discussed in 1858. He thought that any one who was in the habit of seeing the oaths taken in batches, term after term, in the Queen's Bench and the Bail Court at Westminster, must desire that the Bill should be passed into law. The manner, too, in which the oaths were taken before the benchers at the Inns of Court when students were called to the bar was most unseemly. He had known an instance of a most able, learned, and conscientious gentleman, and good citizen, who would not go to the bar on account of the oaths which he would be compelled to take. He thought a case had fully been made out for the Bill, and he trusted the House would agree to the second reading. With regard to retaining the oath of allegiance in certain cases, that was a question which could properly be dealt with in Committee.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: As I understand that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) does not intend to oppose the second reading of this Bill, I cannot see that much advantage will be derived from a prolonged discussion on the present stage. With regard to my own vote, which will be in favour of the

  731
  second reading, I must say that I do not attach any great importance to promissory oaths, such as are dealt with by this Bill, which cannot he made the subject of a prosecution. I do not believe that our constitution reposes for its security upon the oaths of allegiance. I dare say the House will recollect the anecdote of a French statesman who, on being called on to swear to a new constitution somewhere about the beginning of this century, remarked that that was the tenth constitution to which he had sworn in his time. The efficacy of oaths of this description may be judged of from that example. In times of disturbance such oaths are utterly valueless where the constitution does not rest, as the English constitution does, on the affections and convictions of the people. My objection to this Bill, therefore, is that it goes a very little way indeed, and that it only effects an object which, perhaps, is scarcely worth the interference of Parliament. However, I have no other objection to it, and if there are any points which require detailed consideration, the Committee will be the proper period. I trust, therefore, that the House will pass at once the second reading.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT: The value of an oath or a signature depends, of course, altogether upon the honesty of the person taking or giving it. The right hon. Gentleman has told us the story of a French statesman who had no objection to swear to any number of constitutions, and the parallel to it may be found in the anecdote, well known to all gentlemen who have been at Oxford, of the undergraduate who, when he was told on presenting himself for matriculation "You will have to sign the 39 Articles," replied "Oh, yes; 40 if you like." When you meet with persons who are ready to trifle with oaths and securities of this kind of course they cannot be of much use. I am not going to make any objection to this Bill now, but I am afraid lest in giving my assent to it I may be entrapped into assenting to a much larger measure than it appears to be on the face of it. Where we deal with matters of such importance we have a right to expect that the particular proposition before us has received proper consideration from the Government of the day. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman who has charge of the Bill has given great attention to it, but I hope that on the next stage the Government will be able to tell us that they have laid the matter before their law
  732
  officers, and that the effect of the Bill will be confined to that which appears on the face of it to be its intention. I object myself to an oath being required on any subject but on one of the most solemn importance; but I should very reluctantly part with the power of requiring any person filling an office of any consequence in this realm to take the oath of allegiance. But, as I read this Bill it is intended to abolish the requirement to take the oath of allegiance as well as the oaths of abjuration and supremacy. I cannot tell what reasons may be offered why all the oaths should not be abolished in reference to the particular offices affected by the Bill, but at any rate we ought to have the opinion of the law officers that the operation of the Bill will not extend beyond the intent which appears on the face of it.
  MR. MELLORsaid, that the benchers of the Inner Temple had given no opinion on the subject of these oaths, but his own experience was entirely in favour of their abolition. Nothing could be more shocking than the levity with which they were administered and taken.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he agreed in the necessity of requiring from the Government the information desired by his right hon. Friend below him (Mr. S. Estcourt). The difficulty of considering the Bill was increased by the arguments of those who supported it. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State said he objected to all promissory oaths whatever; but he should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman whether he was of opinion that the army ought no longer to take the oath of allegiance. That was a question of considerable gravity. The hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill was in favour of continuing the oaths in the case of all offices of trust, but then the question would arise what were offices of trust? As he understood that the hon. Gentleman intended to introduce considerable amendments into the Bill, he hoped that the Bill would be committed pro formâ, and the amendments introduced in it before the discussions came on, so that there might not be any loss of time in discussing matters which were not really intended to stand in the Bill. As to the anecdote of the Home Secretary about the Frenchman who was so ready to take any number of oaths, he did not think Englishmen were so unscrupulous in general. In a great majority of cases they did attach importance to the oaths, even of a promissory nature, which they took.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISexplained that what he had said was, that he did not attribute any value to the general administration of the oath of allegiance to the public at large with a view of maintaining the existing constitution. He had made no remark with reference to the administration of the oath to persons holding office under the Crown, or persons in the army, neither of whom were affected by this Bill.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, he should support the Bill. He thought that the danger which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had pointed out was amply guarded against.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Tomorrow.

  AGGRAVATED ASSAULTS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  VISCOUNT RAYNHAM VISCOUNT RAYNHAM moved that the House go into Committee on this Bill.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, he rose to move that the Bill be committed that day three months. The argument in favour of the Bill was, that the existing Act had failed; but the returns which had lately been laid on the table, showed that the present law on this subject was not inoperative, and that the powers possessed by the magistrates were sufficient. It appeared that in the last five years 123 cases had been disposed of at the City Police Courts by convictions, with from one to six months' imprisonment; at Bow Street, 75; at Clerkenwell, 301; at Lambeth, 121; at Marlborough Street, 141; at Marylebone, 101; at Southwark, 289; at the Thames Court, 153; at Worship Street, 264; at Hammersmith and Wandsworth, 69; and at Greenwich and Woolwich, 220. The punishments in those cases varied from one to six months' imprisonment. But even granting that the law had failed, would the means proposed by the Bill have any effect in repressing the offence? There was difficulty enough at present in getting prosecutors to come forward; but that Bill would infinitely increase that difficulty. Was it at all likely that, after being subjected to the brutal punishment of flogging, the cruel husband would return to his wife and behave better? The only petitions which had been presented in reference to the Bill
  734
  were presented by the women of England against it. All our legislation of late years had been of a humanizing character; and a strong feeling had grown up lately, in reference to the use of these punishments in the army and navy, that they did not repress offences, but merely brutalized those on whom they were inflicted. But even granting that all the arguments which he had advanced were unsound, the Bill, as it stood, could not be carried into operation. The third clause gave a power of appeal to Quarter Sessions, with the privilege of being held to bail. Of course, everybody sentenced to this punishment would appeal. The first thing a man would do, when he was bailed, would be to wreak his vengeance on his unfortunate victim, and then take himself off altogether. For all these reasons, he should move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
  Amendment proposed,
  "To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee"
  —instead thereof.
  MR. HARDYsaid, he rose to second the Amendment. If they were to be guided by their feelings merely in these matters, there was no one who would not
  "—put in every honest hand a whip "To lash the rascals naked through the world"
  who were guilty of such outrages. But the questions to be asked before
  legislating further were, had we a right to inflict a barbarous punishment like this, was it likely to repress the offence, and was there sufficient proof that the present law had been inoperative? From a return moved by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Alderman Salomons) it appeared that at Bow Street, where the best among the Metropolitan magistrates were usually stationed, of twenty-four convictions for wife-beating which had taken place during the last five years, a sentence of six months' imprisonment had only been imposed in a fourth of the cases; and of fifty-one assaults on other women in three instances only had this punishment been inflicted. The law had not even been stretched to its utmost limits in these nine cases out of a total number of seventy-five, as the magistrates had power to require, at the expiration of the sentence, that the offender should be bound over to keep the peace for an additional period of six months. At the Thames Police Court, out of 153 convictions, only twenty of the offenders

  735
  had been sentenced to six months' incarceration. At Worship Street Police Court the proportion was greater; sixty-seven out of a total of 264 having undergone this lengthened imprisonment, but the number of those sentenced to hard labour was steadily diminishing. It must be borne in mind that the magistrate, if he conceived the case was one that called for severer penalties, could send it for trial before the Sessions Court, where the accused would have the benefit of having his case heard by a jury. It was unwise, he maintained, to place in the hands of a single person the uncontrolled exercise of a power which might be harshly employed in one of those moments of indignation to which every man was liable. He might add that no Metropolitan magistrate asked for these additional powers. He had obtained from Mr. Shepherd, the manager of the House of Correction in the West Riding, some particulars relating to the effects of corporal punishment as at present applied. In thirteen years previous to 1852 it appeared that 256 persons were committed to that prison, part of whose sentence was that they should be whipped. Of these 156 returned to prison in seven years afterwards, being at the rate of nearly 61 per cent. It was, therefore, plain that they were not deterred by this punishment from their evil courses. Of 40,223 persons committed under all sentences, 11,294 returned in seven years, being at the rate of 28 per cent. This showed the effects of mere imprisonment accompanied by good reformatory discipline, and ought to make the House pause before extending the punishment of the lash. The existing law had not yet been carried out in all its severity, and, if the punishment were now increased as proposed, he doubted whether women would be found to proceed against these by whom they were so cruelly beaten. Brutal as the offence undoubtedly was, the great object of the House must be to secure certainty of punishment, and he therefore felt anxious to prevent a course of legislation which their feelings might naturally lead them to pursue.
  MR. PAULLsaid, he had come down to the House with the intention of moving the Amendment which had boon more ably moved by the noble Lord. He should, therefore, give him his cordial support. He objected to the Bill, both on account of its principle and its details, and he criticised its provisions with a view of showing that, even if the House were to sanc-
  736
  tion the punishment of whipping, which he regarded as ineffectual, there were defects in the measure which must prove fatal.
  MR. W. EWARTsaid, he would remind the House that petitions had been presented by those whom it was sought to protect, complaining of the degrading punishment which it was proposed to legalize. He had been assured by one of the ablest of the Metropolitan magistrates that the power of appeal in itself would defeat the provisions of the Bill, from the fact that the husband held the purse-strings. Believing that punishments of undue severity created a reaction in the public mind, he should, on mature consideration, vote against the further progress of the measure.
  COLONEL NORTHobserved that he would never consent to place in the hands of a single individual the power of flogging a fellow-creature. So much was he opposed to flogging, oven in the army, that if he thought any one man could do away with it, he would abolish it altogether.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the principle which animated the House was the honourable and manly desire of preventing husbands from brutally maltreating their wives, but it was necessary to pause before they adopted the proposition embodied in the Bill of the noble Lord. That measure was framed on the simple principle which had guided our ancestors, who, when they found a particular crime becoming prevalent, increased the stringency of the law, so that ultimately our criminal code became noted for its severity. But the policy which had been adopted of late years, and which had proved more successful in the repression of crime, was to mitigate the penalty. At the beginning of last century whipping was a common punishment, and his noble Friend now sought to revive its popularity. There were other punishments which some persons, in their indignation against brutal husbands, might invite them tore-establish, such, for instance, as that of the pillory, where culprits, with their ears cut off, were made to stand. A satirical poet touched in a well-known couplet on the treatment of offenders in the last century, and of the feelings with which such spectacles were regarded:—
  "Earless on high stood unabash'd Defoe, And Tutchin flagrant from the scourge below."
  Since the occasion on which this subject last engaged the attention of the House he had consulted the magistrates, and found them almost unanimously of opinion that, so far from diminishing, the tendency of

  737
  the noble Lord's Bill would be to increase these brutal assaults. In reply to questions put by him, Mr. Hall, the chief magistrate of Bow Street, whose opinion was naturally entitled to weight, stated that the crime of beating wives had decreased. The number of cases heard at the several police courts from the 1st of May, 1858, to the 1st of May, 1859, amounted to about 192; and from the 1st of May, 1859, to the 1st of May, 1860, to 142, showing a diminution of 50 cases during the latter period. During the year ending the 1st of May, 1860, the maximum punishment of six months was not usually inflicted. In 142 cases then heard 19 offenders were sentenced to imprisonment for six months, 18 for four months, 31 for three months, 36 for two months, 29 for one month, and in the remaining cases the punishment varied from six weeks to seven days. In the same period, in addition to imprisonment, bail was required for six months in 6 cases, for four months in 1 case, for two months in 2 cases, and for one month in 1 case. It was, therefore, evident that the power of requiring recognizances, which in many cases would amount to an additional term of imprisonment, had been rarely exercised. As the noble Lord, in the new edition of his Bill, had omitted the provisions relative to a minimum of four months and a maximum of eight months' incarceration, it was unnecessary for him to trouble the House with the opinions he had received on that point, but he should like to read the answer given to the fourth query by Mr. Hall:—
  "I am clearly of opinion, and I believe that every police magistrate so thinks, that it is not desirable to inflict flogging for first or second offences. My strong belief is that the existence of such a power would defeat the object in view. Even under the present Act wives reluctantly complain; but if husbands are to be subjected to corporal chastisement and long imprisonment there will be a very general disinclination to appeal to a magistrate. At present, by the interference of friends or otherwise, a reconciliation may be effected between husband and wife upon his liberation from prison, but the infliction of the degrading punishment of flogging will, I fear, destroy all chance of a renewal of kind feeling. Offenders having been whipped will probably quit the prison animated by intense and implacable hatred of their wives, whose lives may, perhaps, be placed in great peril. The more I reflect on the subject the more opposed I am to the infliction of flogging. The decrease I have mentioned during the period of a year is strong evidence of the sufficiency of the powers given by the present Aggravated Assaults Act, and I beg to call attention to the fact that only in ten cases did the magistrates consider it necessary to require bail over
  738
  and above the imprisonment adjudged, and further that in no more than nineteen instances was imprisonment imposed to the extent of six months,"
  A letter, very much to the same effect, had been received from Mr. Paynter, also an experienced magistrate. Under the circumstances, and however much they might respect the motives which had induced the noble Lord to bring forward his Bill, it could not fail to be regarded as a mistaken and retrograde policy; and if the noble Lord still pressed the measure on the attention of the House the only course which could be adopted was to vote in favour of the Amendment.
  MR. BONHAM-CARTERsaid, that he could not agree with all the alterations that had been made in the Bill, but he held that on a former occasion the House had unmistakeably expressed its opinion in favour of the principles contained in it. The question was not merely as to the severity, but as to the applicability of the sentence. A man who was bound by all the laws of religion, not to speak of the ties of affection, to use the great physical power which he possessed for the protection of his wife, had no right to inflict torture upon her, and to keep her in a state of subservience and fear. A man who did so was worse than a brute, for no instance was found in the animal kingdom where the female was treated with that brutality which Englishmen were believed in foreign countries to exercise towards their wives. The punishment for such offences inflicted by the existing law was felt, perhaps, with even greater severity by the wife and family, whose means of support were withdrawn when the husband was put in prison, whereas the dread of a punishment, short but ignominious, might exercise a deterrent effect over that brutal class of men who could not be regarded as adults, but as grown-up and ignorant children. The arguments which they had heard urged against the principle of the Bill applied simply to the cases of women who had already suffered from their husbands' brutality; but they should also consider the vast member of women whom such an enactment as that before them would protect in future from violence and unmanly assaults. He was not in favour of inflicting the punishment of flogging for a first offence, but as that point was a matter of detail, it could be amended in Committee.
  MR. DEEDESsaid, whatever the feeling of the House might have been on the second reading, the feeling was strongly

  739
  against the Bill at that time; and he apprehended the cause of that was that the House, however anxious to put down this brutal crime, had calmly considered the proposed method of doing so, and had come to the conclusion that it would not be effective. He wished to call attention to the anomalies of the appeal clause. It appeared while that appeal was pending the offender might be liberated on bail. Of course he would go home, and he (Mr. Deedes) would like to know what sort of life the husband and wife would lead while waiting for the hearing of the appeal. He believed that no bench of Magistrates would confirm the punishment of flogging on appeal. He had no morbid horror of flogging, and he was not prepared to say that it should not be continued in the army or employed in the case of young culprits, but he believed that in this instance the noble Lord would fail in his object; and he would suggest to him to accept the general feeling of the House and withdraw his Bill.
  MR. PULLERsaid, he was of opinion that to inflict the punishment of flogging for the first offence which a man might be betrayed into committing in the heat of passion would be somewhat too strong a measure, but there was some reason to suppose that corporal punishment was the only form of punishment which would prove efficacious in the case of the individual who was in the habit of repeating the offence. In the early part of the present reign, when several cases of assault, or threatened assault, on Her Majesty took place, the Government of the day, instead of bringing in a Bill to make the offence high treason, passed a law under the operation of which the first person guilty of the offence might be whipped, and the result had, he believed, been that there had been since no repetition of it. The House had been told that the punishment provided by the existing law had not been carried out except in a very few cases, but that was accounted for by the magistrates knowing that the long imprisonment of a husband was generally followed by the wife being sent to the workhouse. The actual result of the law as it stood was— that within the last five years 375 persons had been committed for aggravated assaults on women, one-third of such assaults being on wives. Looking, however, at the Bill before them, he could not think that such a punishment as that proposed should be inflicted at the discretion of any single magistrate. They might, however, safely
  740
  be entrusted with the power of sending cases to the Quarter Sessions, and the Quarter Sessions might then inflict the punishment in question.
  MR. BRADYsuggested the withdrawal of the Bill, and the introduction of another empowering the Magistrate to send the cases with which the Bill proposed to deal to the Quarter Sessions.
  VISCOUNT RAYNHAMreplied, it could surely not be said that the present law was effective when under it an aggravated assault took place every day in the Metropolis alone. He admitted that the lash was a degrading punishment, but it was intended for a degrading offence. He referred to the adoption of flogging as a punishment for assaulting Her Majesty, and he contended that the House ought to consider every woman as worthy of protection as our gracious Sovereign. If the House would allow the Bill to go into Committee he would propose such alterations as would prevent the offenders being at large during the pending of the appeal, and would not give a power of appeal against the flogging only, but against the sentence altogether. He was willing to withdraw the Bill if the Government would agree to support a measure for the infliction of the same punishment on the sentence of the Quarter Sessions.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 174: Majority 117.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Bill put off for three months.

VALUATION OF LANDS (SCOTLAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. BLACKBURN, on moving the second reading of this Bill, stated that its object was to amend the Valuation Act, which had been passed in 1854. That Act only provided for the gross value, and the present Bill sought to amend it in providing that the net value should also be found, in order that all assessments should be made on it. He regretted that he had not seen the Bill of the Home Secretary in reference to the valuation of England and Wales, but he believed there could be no objection to this measure.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  SIR WILLIAM SCOTTsaid, that there were clauses in the Bill to which great exception must be taken. He considered that if the Bill were passed, great confusion in the mode of valuation in Scotland would be introduced.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, this Bill was one of considerable importance, as its operation would affect the interests of all persons resident in Scotland, and alter the basis of the present valuation of property with reference to all local taxes, or at any rate a part of them, and in that indirect manner the Bill would have a bearing upon the Parliamentary and other franchises. So far as he understood the statement of the hon. Gentleman, it was this:—The Scotch Valuation Bill established a basis which was different from that established by the English law, namely, a gross rental as opposed to a net rental, without the deductions specified in the second section of the Bill. Those deductions were allowed by the English law, and the Bill which he (Sir George Lewis) intended to introduce, and which would shortly be in the hands of Members, merely recognized the existing law, and introduced no new principle with regard to valuation. This Bill sought to alter the law as fixed by the Act at present in force in Scotland, and substituted a rateable value with deductions, instead of a rateable value identical with the gross rental. He was not prepared to say that such an alteration might not be desirable; but he wished to point out to the House that all those changes with regard to the incidents of taxation, affected existing interests, and gave rise to a great difference of opinion. In the absence of the Lord Advocate, he felt great diffidence in expressing any opinion upon the subject. He thought it would be more satisfactory to the House, before coming to any decision, that they should hear any opinion which he might have to express upon, the matter. If the House should agree to the second reading, he trusted it would be understood that upon the Motion for going into Committee it would be open to the Lord Advocate to express an opinion unfavourable to the Bill, in case he should have formed one.
  MR. BLACKsaid, the objections taken to this Bill were well-founded. He thought the Bill would introduce great confusion into the present mode of valuation in Scot-
  742
  land, which he believed was to be much commended. The proposed mode of assessment would involve many disputes which might be avoided by taking the gross valuation. Under the mode of assessment which the Bill would introduce a man might be a voter one year and yet have no right to a vote the next year. He believed that the Bill would only tend to introduce confusion and difficulty, and he therefore moved that it be read a second time that day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words, 'upon this day three months.'
  MR. CRAUFURDseconded the Amendment, because it did not appear that any hardship had arisen from the present mode of valuing, to which people were accustomed, and no grounds had been shown for making this change. The effect of the Bill would be to disfranchise hundreds of electors throughout Scotland, as was stated in a petition that he had presented from the town council of Ayr, and in that town alone he believed a hundred would be disfranchised by it. The existing arrangement worked very well, and it was unnecessary to disturb it.
  MR. MUREsaid, the general object of the Bill was to introduce a general principle of valuation in Scotland, and as he believed they were all willing to establish that principle, he hoped they would assent to the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet (Sir George Lewis) read the Bill a second time, and consider its principles, and amend its detailt in Committee.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE(who was by this time in his place) said, that when the Valuations Bill of 1854 was under consideration, the Select Committee, including the late Mr. Hume, took much trouble with the question whether the assessable value, or the gross value, should be adopted, and it was found impossible to frame a schedule of deductions for repairs, insurance, and other expenses of property, besides rates and taxes. That idea was therefore abandoned, and the gross value was taken as the only practicable scheme. But the hon. and learned Gentleman now proposed to re-open the whole question, and so far from his Bill producing uniformity, it would produce discrepancies all over the country, if an attempt were to be made by the local authorities to estimate the probable average annual amount of those charges. The result would be that they must either have a

  743
  special estimate of the annual cost of repairs for each property, which would be too cumbrous and laborious to be attempted, or else the new valuation would be a mere assemblage of averages, none of which would correctly give the real value. The effect of such a system might also be to exclude from the election roll some men whose qualifications entitled them to be placed upon it. It was true that in Ireland a system of net valuation existed, but there it was carried out by a Government Board on an uniform system, whereas it would be left by this Bill before the House to the Commissioners of Supply in each place. In his opinion the gross valuation was practically the more useful system of the two, the actual rent paid being taken as a basis for it. One clause of the Bill, relative to the valuation of crops, might perhaps not be objectionable; but as the present system worked, upon the whole, to the benefit of the country, it was better to leave it as it stood.
  MR. BLACKBURN, in reply, denied that the Bill proposed to introduce any new principles. The Valuation Bill was only Drought in in 1854, and it introduced a very erroneous system—a system so erroneous, indeed, that it could not be carried out under the Bill itself. He maintained that the principle of his Bill, which was to assess on the net value, was the only fair and just one. It prevailed in Ireland, and was about to be adopted for England. The present system was peculiarly hard on railways, which were assessed on gross value in the parishes through which their lines passed, and great litigation was the consequence in order to secure a fair deduction for maintenance of the way. He would suggest that they should agree to the second reading of the Bill, and postpone the Committee until they had been made aware of the provisions of the English Bill, which the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary was about to introduce. If the principle of that Bill proved to be assessment on net value, then let the principle be also applied to Scotland; if it were not, then the House could reject the present Bill.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 69; Noes 116: Majority 47.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Bill put off for three months.

FELONY AND MISDEMEANOUR BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. DENMAN, in moving the second reading of this Bill, explained that its object was to assimilate the proceedings on trials for felony and misdemeanour to those on trials at Nisi Prius, as far as related to the regulation of addresses to the jury. Its object would be more easily seen if the House would permit him in a few words to review the successive amendments of the law with regard to criminal procedure, and the facilities allowed to prisoners for their defence. It was only during the last century that a prisoner had been first allowed to examine witnesses upon oath. The denial of that right was an anomaly which had existed for centuries, and the strongest reasons given for its continuance were no better than this—that if the witnesses were not examined on oath they would be "able to speak more largely and beneficially for the prisoner." It was not until the reign of Queen Anne that an act was passed to allow prisoners to examine witnesses upon oath. After that, even down to the year 1836, the state of things remained anomalous and strange; for whereas in cases of misdemeanour prisoners had always been able not only to call their sworn witnesses but to employ counsel to argue their cases before the jury, in cases of felony it was not till 1836 that a Bill brought in by the hon. Member for Dumfries was carried to allow counsel to be heard for prisoners. That was resisted for a long time by Judges and other lawyers of great authority. Lord Lyndhurst was one who opposed it at first, though he afterwards became converted; however, the law was at length altered, and a great amendment it had proved. It was curious to remark that before 1836 the offence of treason as well as that of misdemeanour stood upon a different footing from cases of felony, for by an Act of William and Mary the prisoner on his trial for treason had a right to call upon the Judge to assign to him any two counsel whom he chose to name. By the construction of that Act, which had prevailed almost ever since it was passed, a prisoner in a case of treason had also a further advantage, for it was held that his counsel might not only open the case for his defence, and then call evidence, but comment afterwards on that evidence, and set right anything that might have been set wrong

  745
  in cross-examination by the prosecuting counsel, and so leave his case for the prosecuting counsel's reply and the summing up of the Judge. Such had been the law in cases of treason ever since William III., and at first a still more liberal privilege was given, because two speeches were allowed to be made by each of the prisoner's counsel, namely, before and after the witnesses were called. But in trials at Nisi Prius on the Civil side, until 1854 what was the state of the law? The plaintiff's counsel might open his case, and then call witnesses; and then, if the defendant did not call witnesses, the counsel for the plaintiff had no opportunity of speaking a second time; but if the defendant's counsel did call witnesses then the plaintiffs counsel might reply, while the defendant's counsel could only speak once, namely, in opening his case. That gave an unfair advantage to the party who had the last word, the other party not being permitted to sum up his own evidence. The Commissioners for the amendment of the law therefore recommended an alteration; and, in 1854, an Act was passed, of the working of which they had now had six years' experience, by which, in Nisi Prius trials, if at the close of the statement of the plaintiff's case the counsel for the defendant did not announce his intention of calling witnesses, the counsel for the plaintiff was allowed to address the jury a second time after his own witnesses had been called, to sum up their evidence, and the defendant's counsel had the last word; but if the defendant's counsel chose to call witnesses, the defendant's counsel made a second speech after the defendant's evidence had been produced, commenting upon the defendant's case, and the plaintiff's counsel then replied in order to explain and sum up what had been said by his own witnesses. The effect of the new practice had not been to lengthen trials in any considerable degree. On the contrary, a great deal of time had been saved through the prevention of much fruitless cross-examination of witnesses, as well as of those lengthened anticipatory observations which counsel, not having the right of reply, were obliged to address to the jury, in order to meet every conceivable turn which the case was likely to take. From not being allowed to sum up the whole of the evidence at the close, the prisoner's counsel were frequently deterred from calling important witnesses, merely because they could not tell what might be the effect upon the jury if these witnesses
  746
  were shaken on some immaterial part of their testimony. Such a state of things operated most prejudicially to the due administration of justice, and the Judge was sometimes compelled by it to take upon himself the functions of an advocate. The evil would be remedied by conceding to counsel on both sides the right of being heard after as well as before they adduced their evidence, in the same order as was now adopted with so much advantage at Nisi Prius. He believed he had sufficiently presented the case without going into all its details. He considered it to be a very strong one, and the only point he would further refer to was the principle which some contended for—namely, the right of the counsel for the prisoner always to have the last word; but as that was a point which had been fully argued during the discussion of the Prisoners' Counsel Bill in 1836, when a sort of compromise was entered into, he saw no reason for further discussing the matter in relation to the present Bill. He left the Bill in the hands of the House, and he hoped they would pass it as an improvement upon the present law.
  MR. HARDYsaid, he did not intend to oppose the Motion, although he was not so sanguine as the hon. and learned Mover, about the benefits to flow from this measure. There was not a perfect analogy between civil and criminal cases, counsel being generally employed on both sides in the former class of cases, while in the vast majority of the latter the accused was undefended. The unfortunate prisoner who had no counsel was placed at a great disadvantage by his own unfitness to cross-examine witnesses; and to prevent injustice from being done him, the Judge had sometimes to put himself in the invidious position of being, as it were, his advocate. When the counsel for the accused was deterred from calling witnesses, it was generally because he had serious misgivings as to the value of their testimony, and the mere right of making a speech would not enable him to prop up a bad case.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he thought the House would do well to assent to the second reading of the Bill, though he must admit that there was considerable force in the argument of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hardy), that the analogy between the proceedings in civil and criminal cases was not quite so close ns was imagined by the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the second reading

  747
  of the Bill. But although there might be objections to the details of the Bill, yet even that was no reason why they should not apply a principle that helped to elucidate the truth in matters affecting property to the certainly not less important interests of life and liberty. With regard to the objection that inconvenience would arise from prolonging the duration of trials, he believed the House would place very little stress upon it when the object was to secure the more complete administration of justice. His own opinion was that the provision sought to be made by the Bill would prove most advantageous, and he should vote for the second reading on the general ground that the learned Commissioners on whose recommendation the change was made in civil procedure based their recommendation upon the conviction that the change was required to ascertain the truth, and it followed in the main that what was expedient in one case for the attainment of that end would be found expedient in the other.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he was of opinion that when the prisoner's counsel called witnesses he should have the right to a second speech. At present the prosecuting counsel had both the first and the last word; and if the prisoner's counsel were not permitted to sum up, and explain any defect observable in the manner in which a witness gave his testimony, he would probably be induced to abstain from calling witnesses at all. His own experience in his present office taught him that prisoners having defences that might fairly be submitted to the jury were deprived of the benefit of them, from the fear lest one of the witnesses might break down, and therefore the counsel employed refrained from calling him. If the defending counsel could make a second speech his motive for withholding the prisoner's case from the Court would often be removed. It was, however, a question whether the prosecuting counsel should be allowed a second speech. Where the prisoner was undefended he did not think that was at all necessary. The witnesses for the prosecution in that case would not be cross-examined; and, therefore, if anything in their testimony required explanation, the Judge could point it out to the jury.
  MR. MONTAGUE SMITHsaid, he should support the Bill, as he thought it most important that after the evidence had been given, and perhaps shaken in cross-examination, the prisoner's cousel should
  748
  have the opportunity of summing it up and explaining the discrepancies. He thought, however, that where there was no counsel for the prisoner there was no reason why the prosecutor's counsel should have a second speech. Perhaps in the case of prisoner's counsel the Judge might have a discretion as to whether the second speech should be made or not. He did not support the Bill, because he thought that in the existing state of the law the Judges failed in their duty of holding the scales of justice fairly and impartially, but because he believed that the Bill relieved the Judges of a certain responsibility now thrown upon them, but which they ought not to bear.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, he thought that if this Bill was passed, the Court would be bound in all cases to assign counsel to a prisoner, which would so lengthen the proceedings at quarter sessions as to render necessary the appointment of stipendiary chairmen in all counties.
  MR. COBBETTsaid, he believed that the Bill would work with great advantage in many cases to both the prosecution and the prisoner. He should vote for the second reading, and he trusted his hon. and learned Friend would accede to any modification of the measure which might be deemed necessary, when the House went into Committee.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Tuesday next.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION, &c., BILL.

  SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on the Amendment proposed to Question [6th June],
  "'That the Bill be now read a second time;' and which Amendment was, to leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.' "
  Question again proposed "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  Debate resumed.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he would remind the House that the principle upon which the Bill before them had already been assented to, both by that and the other House of Parliament. The hon. and learned Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Selwyn), however, who had moved the Amendment, had not only objected to the scheme embodied in the Bill, but had set up a counter-proposition,

  749
  and had made charges against the Commissioners which, if sustained, would raise a grave question, not only whether new duries should be imposed upon them, but whether the duties which they now discharged ought to continue to be intrusted to them. Fortunately, the hon. and learned Gentleman had confined his argument to a very narrow issue. He had raised no question as to the amount of the incomes paid to the Bishops or Chapters, nor had he made any charge against the Commission arising out of the sale and purchase or letting of estates, or the erection or repair of buildings. The only complaints he had made against the Bill were, that it would extend a system of centralization, and would render necessary a heavy amount of compensation. He also characterized it as a measure of confiscation. Centralization, compensation, and confiscation—these were ugly words, and ought to be well supported. His hon. Friend, however, endeavoured to prove his case in a somewhat singular manner. In the first instance, he said that centralization must carry with it bad and expensive management; and, to prove that that had been the result in this case, he instituted a comparison between the rental of the estates in the hands of the Commissioners and the expense of their management. He stated the annual rental of the estates at £173,000. At first, he (Mr. Henley) could not find these figures; but he ultimately discovered that they were not in the statement of the Commissioners as to the income for the year 1859—to the Report for which year the hon. and learned Gentleman otherwise confined himself— but were quoted by the authorities appointed by the Treasury, and referred to the year 1858. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the annual rental was £173,000, and the expenses of management £43,000. That, if true, was a formidable charge; but was it well founded? To arrive at that amount the hon. and learned Gentleman had added together the totals of five accounts. The first of these was the Common Fund income account, the office expenses of which, with some small surveying and legal expenses, amounted to £13,000, but which had as much to do with the rental of the estates ns it had with the Pope of Rome. The next was the Common Fund general account, in which surveyors' and lawyers' expenses stood at £6,400; the third was capitular leaseholds, £490; and the last
  750
  was Bishops' and Chapters' commuted estates,£12,922. When they looked at the accounts Nos. 1 and 4, it was clear that the expenses charged in them were largely increased through the purchase and sale of the vast amount of property with which the Commission dealt; how, then, could the hon. Gentleman charge them as agency expenses upon the rental of the estates? [Mr. SELWYN dissented.] His hon. and learned Friend shook his head, but that was what he had done.
  MR. SELWYNexplained that he had not said that the sum of £43,000 was paid out of the rental, but had only contrasted the rental with that and two other sums—namely, £404, which the Commissioners gave to local charities, and £809,000 which they spent on the endowment of churches.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he must remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that his words were, "There could be no question that the management of estates by a central body was enormously expensive. The simple expense of management amounted to no less than £43,000." The hon. and learned Gentleman might not have intended to produce the impression that that sum was expended for the management of estates of which the rental was only£173,000; but that was the impression which those words conveyed to his mind, and he believed also to those of other hon. Members. His hon. and learned Friend had said not a word about the purchase and sale of estates, but the last Report of the Commissioners stated that the value of the fee simple of the property sold and purchased during the year amounted to no less a sum than £1,000,000; so that it was no wonder that these solicitors' and surveyors' charges had been rather high. Nevertheless, during the same year, they had paid over a balance to the Common Fund of no less than £100,000 in money.
  To return to the rental account. The gross rental for the year 1859, including arrears, instead of £173,000, amounted to £218,000. The net rental was £184,000, while the charge for management was in reality only about £10,200. So that instead of a charge of £43,000 upon an income of £173,000, it turned out to be for agency and management a charge of something over £10,000 upon a rental of £218,000, or between 4 and 5 per cent. Whether that might be a trifle more or less than it ought to be he would not pretend to say, but it was not such a charge

  751
  as would warrant the statement that the Commissioners were wholly unworthy of confidence, as would have been the case had they really spent£43,000 in managing estates of which the rental was only £173,000. In the Appendix to the Report, it was stated that in buying and selling they had dealt with no fewer than 288 enfranchisements, 241 sales, and 71 purchases, and had, as he had said, paid over a balance to the Common Fund of £100,000. His hon. and learned Friend, however, had, as he had shown, omitted to notice the necessary charges for all that buying and selling.
  Let him now consider what was the counter-proposition which his hon. and learned Friend opposed to this Bill. His hon. and learned Friend entirely disclaimed, on the part of the capitular bodies, any wish that their incomes should be increased, but he said they ought to do what the Court of Chancery would do—they ought to divide the estates. He had also said a great deal about confiscation. Now, as far as he understood the matter, what occurred twenty-five years ago with regard to the Church property was that Parliament said, "This is trust property, and we will take upon ourselves to declare the uses of it." The distinction was extremely fine between declaring the uses and settling where the legal estate should be. According to his hon. and learned Friend, if the legal estate was transferred to the Commissioners for the use of the Bishops and Chapters, that was confiscation, but if each of these persons or bodies was allowed to have a slice of the property, that was not confiscation. That was rather too fine a distinction for him. The real question for decision was, which of these two modes of dealing with the property would conduce most to the comfort and convenience of those who were interested in it? No one would go further than he would to provide that the parties who had the first interest in the property should have the amount which the law intended them to receive secured to them, not only without trouble, but in the manner which would be most acceptable to themselves. He could not, however, forget the difficulties which arose and the insinuations, often of the most unfounded character, which were thrown out during the existence of the old system, according to which the Bishops or Chapters held the estates and paid to the Ecclesiastical Commission a fixed sum as the surplus produced over a
  752
  certain amount. His hon. and learned Friend desired that a certain quantity of land in perpetuity should be given to each of the Chapters, which should produce exactly the income which they were entitled to receive. In the first place, as land frequently changed its value, the adoption of that plan would render unnecessary a new settlement every ten or fifteen years, or whatever time might be fixed; but there was the further objection to it, that it was almost impossible to assign to a man a given number of acres which should each year or on the average of years for ever produce a certain sum, and neither more nor less. Some persons might manage an estate in such a manner as, while diminishing its value in future years, to get a greater immediate produce from it. For these reasons he thought that it would not be advisable to adopt the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend, and preferred to it that contained in this Bill. His hon. and learned Friend had charged the Commissioners with having violated the Act of Parliament which required them to have an independent audit, by having the accounts audited by Mr. Morgan, one of their own officers. When he heard that, he thought the days of the old Ecclesiastical Commission had come back, but on turning to the Act he found that his hon. and learned Friend was quite wrong in his facts. The Act of Parliament provided that "the accounts shall be audited from time to time in such manner and at such times as shall be directed"—by whom?—not by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners but "by the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury." It was therefore not the fault of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners if the Treasury had had such confidence in one of the officers of the Commission officers, an eminent actuary, as to be satisfied with his audit. It was true that the business had so much increased of late years that Mr. Morgan had not been able to go into all the accounts; but he believed that, upon the whole, the audit was a satisfactory one. He thought the proposal of the Commission was on the whole less objectionable than that of the hon. and learned Gentleman. If his hon. and learned Friend had proved his case against the Commission the case would be equally good and equally valid against leaving in their hands the portion which he proposed to leave to them. If the Commissioners were so extravagant in their management as had

  753
  been alleged, it would not be right or proper on the part of the House of Commons to leave to them the management of any portion of the property. But now that he had gone through the principal statements of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge University, he hoped he had removed the impression which they were so well calculated to produce on the public mind. He believed they ought all to have but one object, to get the property in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners as well managed for everybody as they could, and at as little expense as possible. The Bishops and the capitular bodies should have their fair share of it in the manner most conducive to their interests and most grateful to their feelings. He also thought that the remainder should be placed under the best possible management. The business of the Commission could not be carried on without expense, and he did not believe that it could be transacted at much less cost than at present. He should therefore have much pleasure in voting for the second reading of the Bill, reserving to himself the right of proposing any alteration in Committee.
  MR. PEASEsaid that, though not a member of the Church of England, he wished to disclaim being actuated by any feelings of hostility to it. The diocese of Durham contributed £55,000 a year to the revenues of the Ecclesiastical Commission. He did not know how much out of that the Commissioners allocated to the county of Durham, but it was a very small sum indeed, and one which the Commissioners, he thought, would hardly like to have mentioned in that House. The inhabitants had endeavoured to do their duty; they had made subscriptions, held bazaars, and resorted to other methods to raise money for the erection of churches and schools; but when he considered the proportion given to Durham out of the revenues of the Commission as compared with what was given to other counties, he thought it time that there should be further legislation. A small village in Yorkshire received a grant of £600 towards building a church, the population being 150, while only the same amount was granted towards building a church in West Hartlepool, the population being 10,000, though he did not wish to deny that the latter place received also a grant of £39 a year. Of twenty-three churches built or enlarged in the county, eighteen were done by the
  754
  people themselves, and the remainder by the aid of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The see of Durham was called the golden see, but there was no see for which less was done by the church to supply the spiritual wants of the people than was done for the see of Durham. One result of this was the increase of dissenting communities. There was not a village in the county in which there were not two or three rooms or other places of worship for Dissenters, who had also the advantage of greater lay assistance than the church had, though that advantage was now disappearing. Property had its privileges, but it had also its duties, and he thought the House would not say that other parts of the kingdom had equal claims to the revenues derived from church property in the county of Durham, as the county of Durham itself had.
  MR. G. C. BENTINCKsaid, he thought the Bill ought not to go to a second reading, on the grounds which had been stated by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Selwyn), and he was surprised the other day to hear the very feeble defence offered by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary for these accounts. He had hoped that the Government would have produced a well-considered measure upon the subject. He perfectly agreed with an observation that had been made that piece legislation was generally bad, but it was positively dangerous when applied to the Church. He was quite surprised the other day to hear the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Lewis) who had great financial abilities, say that the accounts were satisfactory and could easily be understood by a person having a special knowledge. Now, the more he looked at these accounts, the more complicated they became, and the less he understood them. Why were they not furnished with a tabular statement of the amount of the receipts, the sources whence they were derived, and the expenses of management? If that were done the House would easily see how the accounts stood. He had been told that the expenses of the management of the Commission were nearer £70,000 than £40,000, which had been stated in that House to be the amount. He did not wish to see the Ecclesiastical Commission destroyed, but he thought considerable improvement might be made in its administration. He denied that the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend would lead

  755
  to a retrograde policy; it would lead to a progressive policy. He did not contend that the estates of the capitular body should be retransferred to them, but his objection to the Bill was, that it proposed to cast all this property at once into the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commission, without taking into consideration the special claims to which it was subjected. The Ecclesiastical Commission was a very unpopular body. It owed its origin to the Reform agitation of thirty years ago. The heads of the Church took fright, and resolved to sacrifice a part, to keep the rest, and the Act of 1835 was passed, which was followed by the appointment of the Ecclesiastical Commission. No doubt great abuses existed in the Church at that time, but the Commission began at the wrong end. The chapters were reduced in number, but nothing was done in any other respect to reform those establishments. If the canonries were sinecures then, they were sinecures now. Those foundations were of two kinds, cathedrals of the old foundation, and those of the new foundation. To the former of these he would not then refer; but those of the new foundation had three special objects—religious instruction, secular education, and works of charity.
  Debate further adjourned till To-morrow.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock.