Sitting of 28 April 1869

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Evidence Amendment [25]; Hospitals, &c. Rating Exemption [81], debate adjourned.
Considered as amended—Naval Stores * [88]; Merchant Shipping (Colonial)* [91].
Third Reading—(£17,100,000) Consolidated Fund*; Colonial Prisoners Removal* [92], and passed.

IMPERIAL GAS BILL (by Order).

  CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration."
  MR. MORRISON MR. MORRISON moved that the Bill be re-committed to the former Committee. What was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander, and he did not see why the same course should not be pursued in regard to both Bills. He regretted to say that the gas consumers in the metropolis were in this matter very much like "sheep without a shepherd." Last year he introduced a Gas Bill for the metropolis which passed into a law for the City of London, and had given satisfaction to the consumers, and he believed also to the companies. The reason why the clauses extending the Bill to the whole metropolis had been withdrawn was the very faint support the promoters received from the Metropolitan Board of Works. Great indignation had in consequence been felt throughout the metropolis; and the Metropolitan Board had promised to mend their ways with reference to all future gas legislation. The result was that they appeared by counsel before the Committee on the Imperial Gas Bill; but the counsel having made his speech, calling attention to the legislation of last year with regard to the City of London, left the room; and in the case of the South Metropolitan Gas Bill the Board made no appearance at all. Although the defalcations of Mr. Benjamin Higgs must have been known to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and although it was owing to the appointment of an auditor by the Board of Trade that the defalcations had been brought to light, not one word was said by the Board as to the appointment of a public auditor. This showed a very inadequate sense of duty on the part of that Board. Having made an appearance, they ought to have properly represented the interests of the gas consumers of the metropolis; but, if it had not been for the attention of independent Members of that House, these Bills would have been allowed to slip through. Under these circumstances the best course would be to refer the Imperial Gas Bill back to the Committee,

  1783
  with a view to the incorporation of all those clauses to which no possible objection could be taken with regard to the testing of gas and the auditing of the accounts by an official public auditor, and also with reference to the question of price, and when a reduction in price should be made. In all future legislation with regard to Gas Bills, the proper principle to lay down, with a view to the interests of the public, was that which had been recommended by the Select Committees of 1866, 1867, and 1868, and carried out in the City of London Gas Act of last Session.
  MR. MONKseconded the Motion. At the same time he could not help thinking that the course taken by the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke), in concert with the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney), in asking the House to agree to nineteen new clauses, on the consideration of a Bill which had been already considered by a Committee upstairs, was not only unusual but wholly unprecedented in the annals of Private Bill legislation. As Chairman of the Committee he thought the proper course would have been for the Board of Trade to be represented before the Committee, and to have informed them that it was the desire of the Government that the clauses now proposed to be incorporated should be added to the Bill. The Board of Trade did not appear before the Committee. The Metropolitan Board of Works, who had petitioned against the Bill, were represented by counsel, who called the attention of the Committee to two important features in the Bill—namely, the price of gas and the rate of interest to be allowed. Both those points the Committee took into consideration. The company had considerably reduced the price, and the Committee decided that it should be still further reduced. He should therefore offer a strenuous opposition to the Bill being re-committed for the purpose of re-considering the price of gas. The Committee also decided that the new capital proposed to be raised should bear interest at 7 per cent in lieu of 10 per cent as proposed by the company. In regard to the appointment of an auditor, the clause in the City of London Gas Act of last Session had not been brought to the notice of the Committee, as it should have been by the Metropolitan Board. With the exception he had mentioned, he saw no
  1784
  objection to the reference of the Bill back to the Committee.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out the words "now taken into Consideration," in order to add the words "re-committed to the former Committee, with a view to the insertion of Clauses to make the Bill consistent with the provisions of 'The City of London Gas Act, 1868,'"—(Mr. Morrison,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. LOCKEsaid, the statement of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), who was Chairman of the Committee, was perfectly correct with one exception. So far as he (Mr. Locke) could understand the speech of Mr. Rodwell, the counsel for the Metropolitan Board of Works before the Committee, it amounted to this—that the City Act which was passed last year, and was founded on the Report of the Committee, over which the present Secretary of State for War presided, should be the model for the Committee on the Imperial Gas Bill to act upon. With regard both to the quality and price of gas the Committee had not acted upon it. The South Metropolitan Gas Company had acted on it, and put the price at 3s. 6d., whereas the Imperial Gas Company charged 4s. at present, and 3s. 9d. afterwards. What he was most anxious about was that, in all future gas legislation for the metropolis, the provisions of the City Act should be strictly carried out.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEobserved that the statements which had been made with reference to these Bills clearly showed the want of some officer to revise Bills which had passed Committees, and see that they contained nothing contrary to public policy or the spirit of recent legislation. He did not know whether this point had received the attention of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson), and whether it would be consistent with his duty to undertake it. The duty was performed "elsewhere" by Lord Redesdale in a very efficient manner. Here they found a very striking instance of this want, a Bill having come out of a Select Committee with the legislation of the last three years utterly ignored; and yet the history of that legislation was sufficiently remarkable.

  1785
  Early in 1866, the Government endeavoured to improve the quality and lower the price of gas in the metropolis. The Government, of which he was an humble Member, took up the subject where the previous Government had left it. A long correspondence ensued between the Board of Trade, the different gas companies concerned, and the Metropolitan Board of Works, the result of which was that the then President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Northcote) brought in a Bill in 1867. What then occurred would not be easily forgotten. An agitation was carried on throughout the whole country, and a pressure was put on Members which was totally unprecedented—going, as he thought, far beyond the bounds of propriety, and what was due to the independence and dignity of that House. He was overwhelmed with letters accusing him of every sort of crime. He was told in letters from shareholders that he was robbing the widow and the orphan; but they had since found out that the shareholders could be robbed most effectually by others. Then came the Committee presided over by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cardwell). Before that Committee, the Imperial, the Chartered, and other companies appeared, and agreed generally on the whole principle of the legislation proposed; but the Bill was rejected, because they would not come to an agreement with the Committee on the question of the back dividends. The legislation of last year was more successful. The City of London Gas Company agreed to propositions made as to inspection, purity, price, and other matters. The Chartered Company behaved very well in the matter; a Bill in regard to which passed earlier in the year containing, by anticipation, the conditions imposed by Parliament on the City of London Gas Company. The Imperial Company and South Metropolitan Company were wiser in their generation; they waited till the storm had blown over, and then brought in their Bills. The object of Parliament last year was to secure uniformity of gas legislation throughout the metropolis, and that would have been entirely defeated but for the vigilance of the private Members who had called attention to the subject. In consequence of the legislation of last Session, an elaborate machinery for the inspection of
  1786
  accounts, for testing gas, &c., had been contrived and set on foot by the Board of Trade, and inspectors and auditors had been appointed. It might be said that the Board of Trade should have watched these Bills. Well, but they might say very fairly that they trusted the Metropolitan Board of Works, and that would probably be a sufficient answer to anything that could be said against them. If he had been in their position, he believed he should have done the same thing. The Metropolitan Board of Works asked for these powers over the companies, and they were given to them by the legislation of last Session. It might well be supposed by the Board of Trade that, when the Metropolitan Board of Works were represented by counsel, all the points would be fully brought before the Committee; but, as the Chairman had stated, they had not been properly instructed in the matter. He quite agreed with the proposition laid down by the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) as to a model Bill on this subject. They might, perhaps, pass a Standing Order, or come to some understanding that, in all cases in which metropolitan gas companies came for greater powers, the clauses in question should be incorporated in their Bills. With regard to price he was a little more doubtful. The Chairman (Mr. Monk) had stated that they had considered the question of price; if so, he did not think it necessary that point should be again referred to the Committee. But he thought that, at any rate, the House should have an opportunity of pronouncing an opinion upon it. He quite agreed that the clauses as to audit and inspection ought to be inserted in the Bills of these gas companies, and that the Bills should be referred back to the Committee for that purpose.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, as some complaint had been made with reference to the Board of Trade not being represented before the Committee he must point out that the Board of Trade had no locus standi before a Committee on a private Bill. No doubt, the question might arise whether it was not the duty of the Board of Trade to bring in a general Bill; but the President of the Board of Trade felt himself entirely precluded from taking any action by the recommendation of the Committee of two years ago, over which

  1787
  his right hon. Friend, now Secretary of State for War, had presided, to the effect that, unless terms satisfactory to the consumers could be arranged, the Board of Trade should abstain from the introduction of any measure similar to that which was then before the House. It had been represented to the Board of Trade that the Metropolitan Board of "Works would appear before the Committee and watch the interests of the consumers of gas in the metropolis, of whom they were the natural guardians. It turned out, however, that the Metropolitan Board had contented themselves with appearing by counsel, who only made a speech and did not call independent evidence; the Committee, therefore, had only heard one side of the question—the evidence of the promoters, and it was not to be wondered at, therefore, that they had come to a decision favourable to the promoters. No blame, of course, attached to the Chairman or to the Committee, but under the circumstances, their decision having given great dissatisfaction to the consumers, and being also entirely at variance with the decisions of two previous Committees in relation to the testing of the gas, auditing the accounts, and other points, only one course remained—to refer the Bill back to the same Committee. With regard to price the whole question had not yet been before the Committee. No evidence had been laid before them on the part of the consumers. This question ought to be considered, more especially as the South Metropolitan Company in their Bill now before the House had reduced their price. It was considered by the Committee, over which his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War presided, that the price of gas could be lowered, and its illuminating power raised, if there was an amalgamation of the companies. If this Bill passed in its present shape that amalgamation would be practically prevented.
  MR. E. W. DUFFsaid, he rose, as a member of the Committee, to explain the conclusions to which they had come. The price of gas had been considered by the Committee. The only Petition in favour of a reduced price alleged that it ought not to exceed 3s. 9d., and the Committee had inserted a clause providing that, after the 1st of January, 1871, the price should not exceed 3s. 9d.
  1788
  No doubt all the gas companies ought to be under the same regulations as to audit, &c.; but it was distinctly the duty of the Metropolitan Board of Works to see that clauses to this effect were inserted in the Bill of any company not now under those regulations. The Committee on this Bill, however, could not deal with clauses that were not before them. The Board of Trade were represented before the Committee. The Imperial Gas Company were at present charging 4s. for gas, although they were entitled to charge 4s. 6d., and they consented, in accordance with the only Petition before the Committee, to reduce the price to 3s. 9d. There was, therefore, no ground for referring the question of price back to the Committee.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) complained of the unusual course taken by private Members in interfering with the decisions of Select Committees.
  MR. MONKsaid, he objected unless it was proposed to re-commit the Bill.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he had misunderstood the hon. Member. He had been induced to give notice of clauses on this Bill from having had the honour of sitting upon a Committee in 1867, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War was Chairman, which examined the whole question of the supply of gas to the metropolis. That Committee began its inquiry on the 19th of May, and sat almost continuously up to the 3rd of August. [Report Aug. 8, Parl. Papers, Nos. 520, 521.] They took evidence, and the result was a long and elaborate Report drawn up, for the greater part, by the Chairman, and which embodied in five heads of Resolutions that which the consumers of gas were entitled to ask. The first was that there should be a reduction of price and an increase of illuminating power; the price fixed on being 3s. 9d. per 1,000, and the illuminating power sixteen candles. This was a compromise, the evidence for the consumer pointing to 3s. 6d.; but 3s. 9d. and the illuminating power of sixteen candles were assented to between the companies and those who represented the public, and the date of January 1, 1869, was named for carrying the arrangement into effect. The next Resolution of the Committee, which was also assented to by the companies, was that an examiner should be ap-

  1789
  pointed at the expense of the companies, to test day by day the purity and illuminating power of the gas, and that any penalties which might be inflicted, should go in a reduction of the dividend. The third Resolution was in favour of an amalgamation of the different gas companies. It was found that there were at that time no less than thirteen companies which supplied the metropolis, each company having a separate staff of engineers, secretaries, solicitors, collectors, and other officers, involving a large amount of money in salaries and expense of management. The Committee suggested, and it was agreed, that the number of companies should be reduced to four, who should supply the whole of the metropolis. The fourth Resolution was that there should be a public audit of the accounts of the companies by an auditor appointed by the Board of Trade. This the Committee were unanimous in regarding as most essential for the safety and protection of the public, and this was also agreed to. The fifth was a Resolution limiting the dividends to the profits of each year. It was proved to be essential to the comfort and convenience of the metropolis that the companies now existing should practically have a monopoly of the gas, as it could not be endured that the streets should be broken up at the pleasure of every new company that might come into the field. The four first Resolutions were, as he had said, assented to by the companies, but they refused their assent to the fifth, and the negotiations went off on the question of the back dividends. When the defalcations of Mr. Higgs became known, these questions, and especially the necessity of an efficient audit of the accounts were forced afresh upon the attention of the public; and he had felt constrained to take the matter up, as he was a member of the two Committees that investigated these questions, and as two of his then Colleagues were now Members of the Government, one had left the House, and one, his hon. Friend the Member for South Warwickshire (Mr. John Hardy), was then engaged with his election petition. He owned he was surprised to find that the Committee, whose Report was before the House, had passed two Bills without inserting the clauses which provided for the protection of the public. He was glad to notice the feeling on the part
  1790
  of the House that this was a public question. The metropolis was at the present paying more than £3,000,000 a year for gas, and the consumers were paying a higher price than in any other of the largest towns in the kingdom. Complaints were constantly made that Manchester and Liverpool had better gas for 2s. 9d. per 1,000 feet. He thought that the Report made, after an inquiry instituted by a Committee of that House, and extending over three months, was entitled to some respect.
  MR. A. W. YOUNGsaid, he had no objection to the Bill being re-committed, but he must object to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Morrison) that they were to re-open the question of price. He was in favour of a public audit, for, as a gas shareholder and gas director, though not in this company, he was anxious for the protection of his property. The directors of gas companies could only look to their auditors to give them in their half-yearly reports a clean Bill of health. The notion was that the post of auditor was a stepping-stone to that of director, and it must be admitted that the directors usually exercised great influence in their appointment. He must, however, protest against the Resolutions of the Committee of 1867 being regarded as the basis of all future legislation on the subject of gas in the metropolis. An experiment was being tried in the most thickly populated districts, and, if it succeeded, it might be adopted by his and other companies who supplied the more scattered portions of the metropolis. That experiment in the City of London, however, might not be quite a fair test of what all could do. The shareholders in gas companies had, he thought, some little claim on the consideration of the House. He happened to hold some hereditary shares, upon which his father received no dividend for years. The originator of lighting by gas died a pauper. He had lately gone over the dividends paid upon his shares, since 1825, and found that the average was slightly above 5 per cent. The original shareholders went into the business under some risk, and oven now, besides the interference of the Legislature, they were at the mercy of any discovery of a superior illuminating power, which would make their gas works worth nothing at all.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, that having been Chairman during two successive Sessions of two Committees on this subject, he wished to state that, while he agreed that the Resolutions of the Committee which sat two years ago were not to be regarded as a conclusive guide to the legislation of the House, he thought that the House would desire to maintain some consistency in its legislation, and to show that there was some principle in what it did. The Members who sat upon the two Gas Committees were, so far as he knew, entirely unconnected with gas property, and they desired to come to an independent conclusion without pressing too hardly upon the gas companies. They rejected the Bill of the Board of Trade because it did not recognize the claim of the gas companies to the 10 per cent dividend, which was said to be guaranteed by the Act of 1860. There was a strong feeling on the part of the Committee not to interfere with the just rights of the gas companies. But they felt that there were other persons who had rights—the gas consumers of the metropolis, who were helpless except so far as Parliament took care of them. There was no power whatever on their part to establish competing companies, and, if justice were to be done to the consumers, Parliament must impose terms upon the existing companies when they came to Parliament for fresh powers. The Committee recognized the right of the companies to a 10 per cent dividend, but they would not admit that the companies were to be at liberty to carry on their business at whatever expense, and that a dividend earned upon an expensive business was to be charged upon the consumer. These two Committees were not exclusively composed of the same Members, but they were unanimous in their conclusions; and, if their decision, arrived at after so much inquiry and consideration, was to be overruled, it ought not to be by a Committee which did not appear to have the opposite side of the case before them, and which was, therefore, not to be blamed if it had decided upon insufficient evidence. It was said to be of no use to refer back to them the question of price, but he maintained that the question of price was cardinal. That which concerned the consumer was that he should not be charged to make up back dividends and upon an expensive business.
  1792
  It was clear from the evidence adduced before the Committee that if all the gas companies joined together they might be able to supply gas to the metropolis on the terms of 3s. 9d. per 1,000ft. for sixteen candle gas. This was now done by two companies—the South Metropolitan and Independent, which charged 3s. 4d. for gas of fourteen candles, nearly equivalent to 3s. 9d. for sixteen candles. The gas companies accepted these terms, but the proposed Bill went off on the question of back dividends, although there was to be an arbitration on the part of the Board of Trade raising the limit of charge to the consumer if the companies with due care and management did not pay 10 per cent. The whole subject of gas supply to the metropolis ought to be carefully investigated by the House, whenever the companies came for new powers, unless they meant to give the consumer wholly over to the companies. It was the practice of all the courts in this kingdom to maintain respect for themselves by paying respect to previous decisions, and the House would do well not to over-rule a decision which had been deliberately arrived at upon the Report of a Committee which did not appear to have had the advantage of hearing the opposite side.
  MR. PEEL DAWSONsaid, he wished to state, as a Member of the Select Committee on this Bill, that they investigated the whole of the ease that was brought before them. If anything were wanting it was on the part of those whose duty it was to oppose this Bill. If the Resolution were not peremptory, he did not see how the Committee could act differently, for none of the questions referred to by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) came even incidentally before them.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid he had attributed no blame to the Committee.
  MR. PEEL DAWSONsaid he did not understand how the Committee could have instituted an inquiry into previous legislation when the fact of previous legislation was not brought before them. To re-examine the question of price would be beyond their power.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he concurred in thinking that the Committee had performed their duty under the circumstances in which they were placed. They would naturally feel hurt that a peremptory order should be made by the House

  1793
  directing them to arrive at a certain conclusion, but it would be most inconvenient if any reference back to them were made in such terms as would prevent their reconsidering any question that might be brought under their notice. He would recommend that the Bill should be re-committed to the former Committee, with instructions to consider the expediency of inserting clauses to make the measure consistent with the provisions of the City of London Gas Act of 1868. The blame of what had taken place was wholly due to the neglect of the, Metropolitan Board of Works. The Committee had been seriously misled. The Metropolitan Board ought to have brought under their notice all the legislation of the last Parliament, and the opinions of the Committee of which his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cardwell) had been Chairman. This ought to have been supplemented by further information, so that the Committee might have had the whole subject before them. It appeared, however, that the local authorities had entirely failed to perform their duty to the metropolis; and when the Committee reassembled they would be in a position of great difficulty, for what reliance could now be placed on the assistance of a body which had proved to be undeserving of the confidence of the inhabitants of the metropolis? On such occasions it; was usual to have the assistance of a Member of that House, who was charged with the duty of representing the interests of the public. The House might appoint one hon. Member to represent the interests of the public before the Committee, and if so it would be necessary as a counterpoise to appoint another Gentleman on the side of the companies. These two representatives having been added to the Committee, the whole subject might be brought under their notice by them in case the Metropolitan Board of Works did not appear to perform their duty.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out the words "now taken into Consideration," in order to add the words "re-committed to the former Committee, with an Instruction to consider the expediency of inserting Clauses to make the Bill consistent with the provisions of 'The City of London Gas Act. 1S68,'"—(Mr. Ayrton.)
  —instead thereof.
  MR. W. M. TORRENSsaid, he had heard with great satisfaction the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that the question of price was to be considered a cardinal one, but he regretted that the Committee objected to re-consider the basis on which the price was to be arranged. The hon. Member for Helston (Mr. Young), said that a low price might succeed in the City, but not in the suburbs. He would remind the hon. Member that if the City was the most populous district it was also the richest, and if they reduced the price to the wealthy it would be impossible to refuse the same reduction to the poorer classes. He did not censure the Committee, but as an analogous case to that of gas was water, he would remark that he had been member of a Committee some years ago which sat for forty days to consider the Water Bills of the Metropolis. The Bill originally before them was the Chelsea Water Bill, and the first thing the Committee did was to apply the same rules indiscriminately to all the water companies. That was what ought to be done with the gas companies. He hoped the House would declare that the question of price was worthy of re-consideration by the Committee.
  SIR JOHN GRAYsaid, he would admit, with a previous speaker, that much credit was due to the metropolitan. Members for now bringing the subject before the House, but he should add that they would have been entitled to much more credit if, when notice of this Bill was given in the London Gazette, they had communicated with their constituents and put thorn on the alert. Sufficient evidence would then have been forthcoming to enable the Committee to come to a right conclusion. There did appear before thorn a body who professed to act on the part of the public, and they were represented by eminent counsel, but they did not produce any evidence in support of their allegations. Failing that, as the Committee had before them a Petition complaining of the price the company proposed to charge, they took the allegations in the Petition, and put it to the promoters whether they could give any reason why the price should not be reduced to 3s. 9d. They were unable to give any evidence against the proposal, and the Committee put in a clause reducing the price after a certain date to

  1795
  3s. 9d. It had been said that there ought to be a uniformity of price. He quite agreed that a uniform price for gas throughout the metropolis would be a most advantageous thing, but it could not be arrived at without an amalgamation of all the companies. A gas main might go through a district where it produced from £1,500 to £1,800 per mile. Another gas main in another district might produce £1,000, and a third in a thinly populated district only £300. At present the whole of the metropolis was parcelled out among different companies, and the consumers must expect to pay a larger price in the suburbs than was charged in central districts where the mains were concentrated, and where large consumers abounded. Evidence was produced before the Committee to show that the Chartered Gas Company, having been brought compulsorily under the regulations of last year, had been obliged to reduce its dividend to 4½ per cent, with the anticipation of a further reduction to 3½ per cent. How could the Committee, who were without a particle of evidence to show the necessity of a further reduction, undertake to reduce the charge of the Imperial Gas Company below the price suggested by the only Petition against the Bill? It was not in the power of the Committee to call before them any public officer to give them the information they required. Why did not the metropolitan Members assist the Committee?
  MR. LOCKE: We could not appear before the Committee. We had no locus standi.
  SIR JOHN GRAYsaid, that the metropolitan Members had full notice that there would be such a Bill, and ought to Have called their constituents together in the several parishes and districts affected by the measure. This was what the Members for the City of Dublin did. They considered themselves as the guardians of the interests of their constituents, and apprised them of every provision in any Act which could affect them. The metropolitan Members might have had no locus standi before the Committee quâ metropolitan Members, but they might have put their vestries and public bodies in motion. The hon. Chairman of the Committee (Mr. Monk) could get no evidence from the Metropolitan Board of Works. He pressed them for evidence, and asked them to give the
  1796
  Committee information, but they were silent, and left the Committee to act on their own discretion and upon such facts as came casually before them. With regard to the South Metropolitan Company, they were already under the reduced price. He doubted whether it would be considered courteous to the Committee to appoint the two additional Members suggested by the Secretary to the Treasury; but, if it were competent for the Board of Trade to come before them and make out a case, and call evidence, the Committee would be very willing to re-open the subject again. He objected to new Members being added to the Committee, as if the House had not confidence in those who originally considered the Bill.
  MR. DILKEsaid, it had over and over again been ruled that vestries had no locus standi before a Committee, because their interests were absorbed in those of the Board of Works; but, inasmuch as an impression prevailed that the interests of the consumers had been betrayed by the Board, the consumers should, in his opinion, have an opportunity of being heard in their own behalf.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he would add his assurance to those already given that there was no intention on the part of those who supported this Motion to cast any reflection upon the Members of the Committee. The House had, however, to consider public opinion, and, rightly or wrongly, there was an impression that the matter had not been properly sifted. He was inclined to believe, with the Chairman, that that was the fault of those who did not appear before the Committee to support the interests of the consumers. At the same time, if there was a feeling that their case had not received consideration, it was the duty of the House to secure a hearing for them. He thought the suggestion of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) best met the case. He (Mr. Dodson) entertained objections to the Motion of the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Morrison) as too peremptory in its terms. Moreover, there was some danger that if the Bill were simply referred to the Committee again, they might in the end find themselves in the same position as they were before. But the suggestion of the hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton) to add two Members, one in the interest of the gas consumers, and one

  1797
  in that of the shareholders was, in the circumstances, calculated to produce the fullest investigation. He thought, however, those two additional Members should not have power to vote, so that, following the ordinary course, the Committee would be perfectly free to come to whatever decision recommended itself to their judgment.
  SIR HENRY HOAREsaid, he must protest, on behalf of himself and the rest of the metropolitan Members against the imputation of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray) that they had in any way been wanting in their duty to their constituents in the matter of this Bill, and he had yet to learn that they could, in any respect whatever, profit by looking to Ireland for advice on such a subject as this. The ratepayers of Chelsea and Kensington had only accepted the Bill on the principle that half-a-loaf was better than no bread. Why should his constituents be compelled to pay at the rate of 4s. 6d. for 14-candle gas, when the City obtained 16-candle gas for 3s. 9d.? All the circumstances of the ease showed the necessity for having one municipality for the whole metropolis.
  DR. BREWERsaid, the object of raising the present question was not simply to obtain a reduction in the price, but to have the illuminating power of the gas increased. The consumers outside of the City of London had no locus standi before a Committee of this House, except through the Metropolitan Board of Works, and although they had done all in their power to urge that Board to represent them before the Committee, the Board refused to pay any attention to their representations. They had, therefore, no alternative but to look to the House of Commons for protection.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, that the charge against the metropolitan Members of neglecting to bring the rights of their constituents before the Committee was groundless, inasmuch as the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) had stated the case of the metropolitan consumers to the House when the Bill was introduced before the Committee was appointed. He would remind the House that it alone was the guardian of the interests of the consumers of the metropolis, as it had granted to certain companies a monopoly of the manufacture of gas; and the consumers had no other
  1798
  means of protection than the insertion of clauses of the character proposed. If the consumers were at liberty to erect new works for themselves when and how they pleased, they would not ask assistance from Parliament.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, he wished to draw attention to one point of interest to every consumer of gas throughout the country. The clause proposed by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney) required that penalties should be paid out of the divisible profits of the company. It was necessary to add to this, a provision requiring that losses occasioned by gross neglect on the part of the directors should be made good from the same source. The public believed that the loss of £70,000 through the frauds committed by Higgs was attributable to the directors' neglect; and, as he considered that the proposition he had made would go far to prevent such frauds, he would promise, if the Committee did not bear it in mind, to propose a clause to that effect on the bringing up of the Report.
  MR. MORRISONsaid, he was willing to accept the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton).
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That the Bill be re-committed to the former Committee, with an Instruction to consider the expediency of inserting Clauses to make the Bill consistent with the provisions of "The City of London Gas Act, 1868."

EVIDENCE AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 25.]
(Mr. Denman, Mr. Locke King, Mr. Locke.)
EVIDENCE AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 25.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. DENMAN, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that if the House would grant him attention for a short time he should be able to satisfy it that the legislation which had taken place upon the law relating to the admissibility of evidence, had left the law in a condition mischievous, irrational, and absurd. He thankfully acknowledged that in the course of the last twenty-six years much had been done much to remove the

  1799
  anomalies which had previously existed, and to enable parties to law suits and judicial proceedings and the public to nave a more full and fair investigation of the truth. The general principle of this Bill was to do away with the few remaining grounds of incompetency to give evidence which were still upon the statute book, or existed at Common Law. The principle of the Bill separated itself into two heads. The first point with which it dealt was the instances of incompeteney to give evidence, based on the supposition that no one could be trusted to give evidence in a case who had a great interest therein, either morally or pecuniarily. The second head dealt with the only other remaining case in which witnesses were altogether excluded; and that was the case in which persons—not from religious convictions, but from some objections which they could not get the better of in their own minds were unable to take an oath and thus were excluded from giving evidence, so that the Crown and the subject requiring the testimony could not have the benefit of it. These two heads came within one large and common principle—namely, that the law ought not altogether to exclude on the ground of incompetency of witnesses any testimony which may be trustworthy or true, but in every case the good sense of the Judge and the jury should be relied upon to decide upon the value of such testimony. Down to the year 1843 the slightest pecuniary interest in a cause prevented any person from giving evidence. A Bill was then passed, commonly known as Lord Denman's Act, which did away with some of the anomalies and much of the injustice which then existed. In 1846 an Act was passed which enabled husband and wife to give evidence for and against each other in the County Court; and in 1851, another Act was passed enabling them to give evidence in civil cases. Under the existing law, however, husband and wife could not give evidence for or against each other in suits instituted in consequence of adultery, nor could the principal parties give evidence for or against each other in actions for breaches of promise of marriage. It was a monstrous anomaly amounting almost to iniquity, that that should be the case, and the Bill proposed to sweep away this unreasonable exception to the law which was now
  1800
  applicable to almost every other kind of civil proceeding. He did not propose to alter that part of the law which prevented husbands and wives from disclosing communications made by the one to the other during marriage; and, if necessary, he was willing to introduce a clause exempting evidence of that kind from the operation of the Bill. The Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act of the 20 & 21 Vict, coupled with the effect of the other statutes relating to the evidence of parties and their husbands or wives had brought about so absurd and unreasonable a state of things that hon. Members would hardly believe such a state of things could exist. By these statutes the principal parties, under certain limited circumstances, were allowed to give evidence; but whether they could give evidence or not, all turned upon the accident, whether the very same issue of adultery happened to be raised in a suit ''instituted in consequence of adultery" or not. In May last Lord Penzance had to try a petition presented by the husband for the restitution of conjugal rights, to which the respondent replied, charging her husband with adultery, and praying for a judicial separation. Upon that the husband abandoned his prayer and offered no evidence, but the wife, being already before the Court, was entitled to go on with her case. The question then arose whether, the issue having been joined upon the charge of adultery, the wife was entitled to give evidence in her own person in support of her case. The legislation was—that in no suit "instituted in consequence of" adultery should husband or wife be allowed to give evidence for or against each other; but the Judge held that, though issue had been joined on the very charge of adultery, the evidence having been tendered in a suit for the restitution of conjugal rights, and not in a "suit instituted in consequence of adultery" a different law prevailed, and the wife's evidence was admissible. That was the case of "Blackburn v. Blackburn," and it was instructive as showing that one law prevailed when a case was commenced, in one way while another law prevailed when the case was commenced in another way, though the issue tried was identically the same in both eases, and there was no conceivable reason why the evidence should be excluded in the one case more than in the other. So ab-

  1801
  surd a state of things ought not to remain on the statute book. The other case was that of "Bland v. Bland," which was a husband's suit for a dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery. The wife in her answer charged cruelty against the husband, and prayed for a judicial separation; but it was held that the wife could not give evidence in her own person even on the question of cruelty, however great that cruelty might have been, because the suit was instituted in consequence of adultery. The Bill had been drawn by an able draftsman, Mr. Hastings, and had been submitted to Lord Penzance, who approved of it, as did also Mr. Best, a great authority on the Law of Evidence, and it had the sanction of the Law Amendment Society. In cases of breach of promise of marriage the law was quite as absurd, for neither the plaintiff nor the defendant could be examined. This was, he believed, the only other remaining case in which the parties were inadmissible witnesses in a civil action; the only relic of the absurd old presumption that where parties had so deep a stake in the case their evidence was not to be trusted, and that the truth was to be served by shutting out the testimony, of perhaps the only persons who had an accurate knowledge of the facts. It was urged that actions for breach of promise of marriage were of an objectionable character; but, so long as they existed, there was no reason why the court should not have the best means that could be obtained of arriving at the truth. In an action for seduction, and in cases of affiliation, the parties were competent to enter the witness-box and give evidence. Another objection which had been made against the principal parties being allowed to give evidence in these cases was that a counsel would be no match against a young lady of interesting appearance, good-looking, and well-dressed, who, if she could tell her story in the witness-box would be able to work upon the sympathies of the jury. But that was not a sound view. As the law now stood, a young woman, good-looking, and well-dressed, who sat below her counsel, but whose mouth was shut, had the opportunity of producing quite as great, if not a greater, effect upon the jury against a defendant whose mouth was closed, possibly not half as clever, half as good-looking, or half as well-dressed as herself, and was more
  1802
  likely to enlist the sympathies of the jury, and produce a detrimental effect against the defendant than if she could be examined and cross-examined like other plaintiffs. He believed that this change in the law, so far from encouraging actions of this description, would have the effect of putting a stop to the worst of them, namely—those in which the plaintiff's character and conduct could not stand the test of cross-examination. There was no reason, therefore, for the continuance of this anomaly. So far as this part of the Bill was concerned, he did not apprehend any serious objection of principle. The second part of the Bill had for its object the doing away with the incapacity of testimony which at present existed in certain cases, on the gound of defect of religious belief. He held that the law ought, in all cases, to leave Judge and juries to decide whether a man was to be believed, and that it should not be incumbent on the Judge to make a man stand down, and in some cases to commit him to prison, if he could not, or would not, from any cause whatever, consent, before giving his evidence, to imprecate Divine vengeance upon himself in case of his evidence being untrue. The first exemption from the necessity of taking an oath was made in 1696, in the case of the Quakers, who, it was found, could not be got by fear of imprisonment or anything else to pledge their oaths, though they were as competent and as likely as any other people to tell the truth. The Quakers were, therefore, exempted from the necessity of taking oaths in civil cases; and, in 1746, the Moravians, having similar scruples, were also exempted. After that another religious body, the Separatists, were exempted. Afterwards this law was extended to all persons who had been, though they had ceased to remain, Quakers, Moravians, or Separatists, and thus the law remained until 1828, when the Quakers, Moravians, and Separatists were also relieved from the necessity of taking oaths in criminal cases. In 1854, another enlargement of the law was made, and all persons who had conscientious scruples on religious grounds against the taking of an oath were permitted to give evidence on affirmation; but the affirmation was a peculiar one, compelling the person who made it to declare that, "according to his religious belief," it was unlawful to

  1803
  take an oath. There were some persons who objected to making such a declaration, because they entertained doubts respecting a future state, or were unable to place their objection to oaths on the express ground of "religious belief." The present law proceeded on the assumption that no man who did not believe in a future state of rewards and punishments was worthy of credence. Now was that a reasonable state of the law? Was not the man who had the courage to take the odium upon himself of confessing that he did not believe in future rewards and punishments a better man for the purposes of testimony than the one who did not believe, but who, without the slightest thought or scruple, made no difficulty, but glibly took the oath and gave his evidence as though he was a believer? Mr. Mill had pointed out very justly that the present state of the law only rejected those Atheists who had a regard for truth, while it admitted all those who were reckless and untruthful. One of the objections made to this part of the Bill seemed plausible, but it was entitled to no weight. It was said that if the man who declined to make the present affirmation suffered a hardship, it was no greater than the hardship suffered by lunatics, who were not entitled to give evidence. But that was not the case, for the evidence of a lunatic who had a lucid interval, or who could properly comprehend and reply to questions put to him, was admissible by law. The law was not so absurd, for instance, as to allow a keeper cruelly to ill-use a lunatic and to exclude the evidence of that lunatic altogether from being heard, unless it were proved that his mental incapacity was so great as to render him incompetent to understand questions and give answers to them. Under the existing law a man might lose all his property and be ruined, or be almost beaten to death, or garotted with impunity by reason of his inability conscientiously to make the declaration now required. Again, the law enabled an unscrupulous person to avoid being examined by pretending to be an Atheist, and thus to rob a meritorious litigant of his rights, or the public of its protection against some outrageous criminal, whom his evidence would convict. Under these circumstances, it was clear that the public interest might be greatly injured by the
  1804
  operation of the law. In many cases women, in a state of pregnancy, had refused to take an oath in consequence of their being under the conscientious, though mistaken, impression that, if while giving sworn testimony, they should by an accidental slip, state anything that was not entirely accurate they would incur the vengeance of God, and thus inflict injury on an existence more precious than their own. Now it was not desirable that the evidence of such persons should be lost merely because they had a superstitious scruple on the subject of oaths. A person might not be a confirmed Atheist and yet might have a doubt as to punishment hereafter—a doubt soon to be dissipated by further reading and reflection. In regard to this class of witnesses, a singular instance had fallen within his own professional experience. It was his duty, some years ago, to prosecute a soldier at Maidstone for the barbarous murder of two young girls, of the ages of sixteen and eighteen. They were found weltering in their blood by a baker, who came up immediately after the murder, and saw the murderer walking away from the spot. He was therefore the best witness to identity. He was accordingly called for the purpose; but when questioned as to his religious belief, he at once admitted that he did not believe in future reward and punishment, and his evidence, though he was to all appearance a respectable man, was, in consequence, excluded. Such a man, believing that lying lips were an abomination, though not an "abomination to the Lord" would have given evidence truthfully according to his conscience. He thought that the Judges should not question a man on such points. If he were willing to take an oath, or if, instead of taking an oath, he were willing to make this promise and declaration—"I solemnly promise and declare that the evidence given by me to the court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," surely this would answer every legitimate purpose. This was the declaration substituted for an oath in the 4th clause of this Bill. He wished to do away with inquiries into religious belief such as those to which he had referred. He did not wish to abolish oaths. Those who wished to take them might take them; but he proposed that it should be no longer the duty of a Judge to hold

  1805
  nice theological examinations. If a man objected to take an oath, a form of affirmation should be administered to him, and when that was done he should be liable to all the consequences of perjury if he told an untruth. The 4th clause provided that any person who, having made such promise and declaration, should wilfully and corruptly give false evidence should be liable to be indicted, tried, and convicted of perjury as if he had taken an oath. That, he contended, was the only logical and just way of dealing with the question. He did not propose this Bill because he believed there were any more Atheists now than there were in ancient days, though they were not so easily sent to prison for their opinions now-a-days; but his object was to prevent a miscarriage of justice from the arbitrary rule of excluding this evidence. He had no wish now to argue the validity or the importance of an oath; he did not deny that there were some shuffling and unconscientious, and he would even admit, some conscientious persons too, in whose case an oath was more likely to obtain the truth than an affirmation; but such cases were quite exceptional, and the evidence of such persons would always require watching. He should reserve any further observations until he heard the arguments that were to be urged against the Bill. He thought he had answered, by anticipation, the principal objections, and he hoped he had said enough to induce the House to give a second reading to the Bill, which he thought would work a very considerable improvement in the law, and promote the ends of truth and justice.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Denman.)
  MR. STAVELEY HILL, in rising to move that the Bill be read a second time upon that day six months, said, he concurred with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Denman) in thinking it was desirable that persons coming into court to give evidence should do so under every responsibility that could be imposed upon them, and he further concurred with the hon. and learned Gentleman in thinking it was not desirable that persons coming forward as witnesses should be questioned as to their opinions respecting future punishment, but in the main propositions
  1806
  of the Bill he did not agree. He had a preliminary objection to the Bill, which was that, even supposing the change proposed by his hon. and learned Friend were desirable, this would not be the proper way to effect it. Last night the Secretary of State for the Home Department stated that there were thirty-two Acts relating to public-houses and beer-houses, and that it would be desirable to consolidate them. Strange to say there were exactly thirty-two statutory enactments relating to the Law of Evidence, beginning with the 15 Elizabeth and ending with a Bill brought forward by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Denman) two Sessions ago. All these enactments ought to be dealt with in one Bill, which might embrace as much of them as it was desirable to maintain, and also embody any changes which it would be advisable to make in the Law of Evidence. By Clause 3 of the Bill now before the House it was provided that—
  "The parties to any proceeding instituted in consequence of adultery, and the husbands and wives of such parties, shall be competent and compellable to give evidence in such proceeding."
  In 1845, some of the most eminent legal authorities expressed themselves as opposed to the principle of that clause. Lord Penzance, Lord Justice Selwyn, and Sir Roundell Palmer had given evidence antagonistic to the principle of admitting the evidence of the parties to a suit in the Divorce Court. A proceeding in the Divorce Court in consequence of adultery was a criminal or quasi-criminal proceeding, and it was contrary to the spirit of our law to require the accused to give evidence in a criminal process. He denied that the clause would promote the ends of truth and justice. Reference had been made to the improvements in the law by enabling parties to the suit to give evidence; but parties to these suits stood in a very different position. In other civil causes there was present the great foundation of the obligation to speak the truth—namely, that by falsehood you were depriving your opponent of property to which he was entitled and making gain to yourself thereby; in these criminal and quasi-criminal cases, however, no such obligation seemed to arise. No doubt the change would increase the business in the Divorce Court, because it would induce parties to institute proceedings on very slender grounds, in the expectation of being

  1807
  able to elicit something in cross-examination of the respondent, or co-respondent, to establish their case. Again, he thought the public feeling would be shocked by the spectacle of an adulterer or adultress getting into the box to avow the immoral act. Would not the woman who openly avowed her infidelity to her husband be adding insult to injury? Then, would not persons be likely to commit perjury to screen their partners in guilt? This sort of perjury would have a particularly bad effect on public morals, because persons would be more ready to excuse it than they would be to excuse false swearing under other circumstances. As to actions for breach of promise of marriage, he never knew one brought into court that had not better have remained outside. A promise of this kind was more easily cooked up than any other, and if the breach of them was to continue to be the subject of action the contracts ought to be in writing. With respect to the proposal to admit the parties in those actions to give evidence, he found that his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had opposed a change in that direction when it was proposed in 1865. If it should be found, after such an inquiry as the House might think fit to institute, that it would be better to examine all parties to a suit, prisoners included, let there be a comprehensive measure placing all on the same footing. This matter ought not to be dealt with by piecemeal legislation; it ought to be dealt with as a whole, and, therefore, he moved that the Bill be read a second time upon that day six months.
  MR. WHEELHOUSE, in seconding the Amendment, said, he would ask why Parliament stopped short at the point it did in 1853? Could it be supposed that then due consideration was not given to all the bearings of the question? It was said that the proposed changes would elicit facts. He admitted that they would elicit something, but he feared that that something would be the reverse of truth—statements which would mislead he would not say Judges but juries, and which it would be better to stop at the threshold of the court. He thought it was most undesirable that the parties, even if rendered competent, should be compelled to give evidence. A putative father was not compellable to give evidence; he might offer his evidence if he
  1808
  chose, and therefore it was his own fault if he rendered himself liable to a charge of perjury.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Staveley Hill.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Tiverton (Mr. Denman), had challenged the opinion of the House on a specific question, and, on a consideration of the whole matter, he felt himself called upon to give his support to the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend. The object of every inquiry was to obtain as much relevant information as possible, to do which you should examine witnesses who knew most about a transaction; but, unfortunately, the law had set up a theory that certain classes of evidence were altogether inadmissible, instead of leaving the effect of it to be considered by a Judge and a jury; and it had undertaken to say that certain classes of persons were incredible. We had violated the theory by admitting the evidence of parties to a suit, which was admitted to be a great improvement, and although they sometimes committed perjury they were usually found out by cross-examination. Every argument used against this Bill was urged against the admission of parties to a suit, and experience had confuted those arguments. The Bill proposed to do away with two remaining exceptions to the principle of admitting parties to a suit, and this change did not require a comprehensive measure. There might be some objection to the admissibility of parties to a suit in adultery which might not apply with the same force to other suits, but still the principle was the same, and it was a mere question of degree. All the arguments went to this, that the parties had so strong and deep an interest in the matter that they could not be believed. But this difficulty must be faced, and, on the whole, it seemed better to admit the evidence and trust to a Judge and a jury to determine the value to be attached to it than to say à priori that it was inadmissible. As to criminal cases, the suits referred to in the Bill were not criminal suits; the obtaining of damages was inconsistent with that. The promoters of the Bill contended that its principle was partly conceded by the law as it stood, for evidence

  1809
  which was inadmissible in a suit for adultery was admissible in another suit if the question of adultery were raised; and there was no principle in that anomaly. His hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Staveley Hill) had objected to persons being called on to criminate themselves. But the Legislature should look to the interests of the innocent, and, at present, if a man knew himself to be innocent he was not allowed to be examined. He asked hon. Members to consider whether they would like to be placed in that position. On all grounds the case appeared to be made out for admitting the evidence of parties to a suit for adultery. He had often heard the noble and learned Lord the Judge of the Divorce Court (Lord Penzance) express the opinion that justice had frequently been defeated in his court from the want of the power to examine the parties to those suits. He was at first startled by the proposition to admit the evidence of parties to suits for breach of promise of marriage, knowing that softhearted jurymen might have more sympathy for young ladies under cross-examination than their own wives would be favoured with; but, if parties to suits were to fee admitted, there was no logical reason why they should be excluded in these eases. They were practically admitted in cases of seduction, and there was no logical ground for distinction between them and actions for breach of promise. Substantially, the same question was raised by the admission of evidence without regard to religious belief. Was the law to say that à priori a man who did not entertain a religious belief could not speak the truth? It ought rather to be left to a Judge and jury to determine whether the man spoke the truth or not. If he were garotted, and the only witness was a man without a religious belief, he would rather have the evidence of that witness than have no witness at all.
  MR. LOPESsaid, he desired to express his cordial approbation of the measure proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Tiverton (Mr. Denman). He thought the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend would bring the rules of evidence more in conformity with themselves, and. would eliminate another anomaly from our statute book. The law student of 1869 would scarcely believe that, twenty years ago, a tradesman
  1810
  seeking to recover the price of goods sold to a customer could not be called as a witness, to prove that of which he had special knowledge. The result was the tradesman was obliged to forego his debt, or trust to the chance of proving it by some evidence unsatisfactory to the jury, and only relied on because the natural and legitimate mode of proof was placed by the Legislature beyond their reach. No one acquainted with the law would hesitate to admit that the changes in the Law of Evidence, made in 1851, rendered the discovery of the truth much easier than it was before. The objections now made against this Bill had been made against every other measure of the same kind at the time when it was brought forward. The hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Mr. Staveley Hill) suggested that the Bill would load to perjury; but, even assuming that, were we to cast away the means of ascertaining the truth, because there were vicious persons who would come into court to state what was false? Besides, if the parties in question were competent to give evidence, the fear of their doing so would prevent many persons from coming into court at all. There were many cases in which plaintiffs and defendants persevered simply because they knew the mouths of their opponents were shut. The plaintiff often made an unjust attack, and the defendant often peristed in an obstinate refusal of a just claim, because they believed that their objects might be attained so long as they were themselves not liable to be called. In cases of breach of promise of marriage third parties who had seen letters which had been lost or destroyed by one of the parties could not be called to give evidence of their contents, because the person who received the letter could not give evidence of the fact of the loss or destruction of such letter. Remarkable anomalies under the existing state of the law occurred in the Divorce Court. A wife or husband might witness with their own eyes the infidelity of the other, and unless some third person could be called to prove the adultery, the unoffending party to the marriage might be called upon to continue cohabitation with a person of whose immorality he had ocular proof. He could obtain no redress in the Divorce Court, because he could not be called as a witness, and

  1811
  there was no other independent proof. Again, if a wife was a petitioner, she could be called to prove cruelty; but if the husband was a petitioner, and the wife set up cruelty as a recriminatory charge, she could not be called. Again, if a suit was undefended, the petitioner could be called and examined under Section 43 of the Act, but if defended the Judge was unable to exercise his powers under that section; because his so doing would inflict an injustice on the respondent, whom in no case could he call to contradict the statements of the petitioner. The ability, discrimination, and discretion of the learned Judge who presided in the Divorce Court (Lord Penzance) was surpassed by no Judge on the Bench, and he believed the fact that the learned Judge in question had given his sanction to the Bill of his hon. and learned Friend would go far to insure its safe passage through both Houses of Parliament.
  MR. SERJEANT DOWSEsaid, he thought he might claim to speak with independence on one branch, at all events, of this question inasmuch as in Ireland there did not exist a Divorce Court, persons in that country who wished to annul marriages into which they had entered were left to resort to the old remedy; and he must say that he had no desire, judging from the reports in the metropolitan journals, to see a Court of Divorce established in his country. The Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Tiverton (Mr. Denman) would, he believed, be accepted by the people of Ireland and the legal profession there as an unmixed good. Its provisions would enable them to get rid of the last relic of absurdity in the present mode of giving evidence. If the breach of a promise of marriage were considered a breach of contract, was it not an unjust thing that both the plaintiff and defendant could not be examined, in order that the real truth might be elicited? Many existing anomalies would be got rid of if the parties were allowed to speak what they had to say, and if it were left to the jury to decide whether or not they believed the evidence given. With respect to actions of crim. con. and breach of promise of marriage, his own experience supplied him with some remarkable instances of the injustice of preventing the parties to the suit from being examined. In order to evade the
  1812
  law, an action for breach of promise of marriage had been brought, including in the declaration a count for assault and battery, and as the plaintiff was examined on the latter count, the defendant by not presenting himself as a witness, practically allowed judgment to go by default on both counts. In another case a debt arising out of the negotiations for the marriage was sued for in a second count, and the breach of promise was thus incidentally tried in a different kind of action. As a woman could be examined in an action for seduction, juries often gave damages for that and breach of promise too. The hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Staveley Hill) had looked at the question from the guilty point of view; but there was an innocent point of view; and he knew remarkable illustrations of injustice due to the existing law. He was once consulted by the defendant in an action for crim. con., and he thought the man would have fainted when he was told that he could not be examined as a witness. The case was a "plant;" it lasted three or four days before a, Judge remarkable for expedition, and it was with extreme difficulty, and more by an interposition of Providence than anything else, that the defendant left the court as an innocent man. If the plaintiff could have been called and certain documents put in evidence the infamous plot would have been exposed in five minutes. He also agreed with the clause as to the mode of swearing or affirming, and as a whole he would support the Bill, as likely to take away the barrier which at present existed against a speedy and easy arrival at the truth, though he thought they might in Committee introduce with advantage some alterations into the details of the measure.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, that this question, in part at all events, raised a much larger issue than at the first blush appeared. He did not mean to oppose the Bill, and, indeed, the mere provision which it contained with respect to oaths would be sufficient to induce him to vote in its favour. But he confessed that he could not help entertaining some doubt with respect to the expediency of their adopting the clause which would make it compulsory upon the parties to a suit in case of adultery to give evidence. He could find no argument in support of that proposal which would not equally

  1813
  apply to the cases of prisoners in criminal trials. The main reason, he believed, why persons charged with adultery had been exempted from the law which allowed the parties to appear in the witness-box was that such an action was looked upon as a criminal rather than a civil proceeding, and that it was considered that defendants ought not to be placed in a position in which they would be not only tempted but almost compelled to perjure themselves. It was a grave question whether they should allow a man on trial for his life to subject himself to examination and cross-examination; but he felt convinced that that question could not be separated from the one which they were then discussing.
  MR. AMPHLETTsaid, he also thought that if this Bill were carried the principle must be extended to the cases of all persons accused of criminal offences, and it was because that was his view that he gave his support to the Bill. He had never been able to see any valid reason why the evidence of prisoners in criminal cases should be excluded. It was said that a guilty man might commit perjury in order to save himself; but he did not think we ought for that reason to deprive an innocent man of the advantage of giving evidence which might lead to his acquittal.
  MR. DENMANsaid, he did not then intend to go into the question, whether prisoners should be allowed to give evidence in criminal cases. But he might observe that there was at least one argument, whether a valid one or not, against the adoption of such a course, which did not, he thought, apply to the alteration of the law he was then proposing; and that was, that in trials for such crimes as burglary, larceny and murder, the prisoners were usually of a class so uneducated and so ignorant that, on examination and cross-examination, they would be almost sure to commit themselves, and to injure their own case, whether they were innocent or guilty. Lord Penzance had expressed to him his general approval of the Bill, but had suggested to him that he might, for the purpose of obviating an objection to the measure, provide that a person should not be called upon to give evidence tending to prove against himself or herself the act of adultery. That was, however, merely a suggestion
  1814
  thrown out by the noble and learned Lord, who would, he (Mr. Denman) felt convinced, be prepared to take up the Bill in the House of Lords, if it should pass in the Commons.
  Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

HOSPITALS, &c., RATING EXEMPTION BILL— [BILL 81.]
(Mr. Wheelhouse, Sir Herbert Croft.)
HOSPITALS, &c., RATING EXEMPTION BILL— [BILL 81.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Heading read.
  MR. WHEELHOUSE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the object of the Bill was to relieve hospitals, dispensaries, and infirmaries from their present liability to poor rates, borough and other local rates. These institutions, instead of being numerous, were few and scattered; and, indeed, in their very natures, had the effect, by affording relief to the injured and distressed, of relieving the rates of charges which they would otherwise have to bear. The exemption of such institutions from rating had always been considered as established, until they wore made rateable, in consequence of an elaborate judgment lately delivered by Mr. Justice Blackburn, which was established by a recent decision of the House of Lords. He had taken, as the model of his Bill, the Act exempting literary and scientific institutions, and whatever could be pleaded in favour of these must apply with tenfold force to the case of charitable institutions. If it were right, twenty years ago, to exempt the former much more must it be so to exempt those to which this Bill applied.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Wheelhouse.)
  SIR HERBERT CROFTsaid, he desired to support the Bill, which would have the effect of removing some of the obstacles frequently presented by the law to the establishment of those institutions by benevolent persons. In the case of St. George's Hospital, of which he was one of the governors, the contributions had, for the last seven years,

  1815
  fallen short of the expenditure; and, during the last two or three years, in addition to other heavy expenses, it had had to pay over £500 in rates. If this Bill were passed, those institutions would be able to do much to reduce the rates, by affording increased relief to the poor and distressed. They were, at present, passing a measure which would materially benefit the contributors to the support of the helpless and infirm in Ireland; and they ought not to refuse to confer a somewhat similar been upon the same class in England.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, that in Scotland all those institutions were assessable for local rates. There were sometimes special exemptions but, as a general rule, they were liable to pay to local rates. It was a very great hardship that rates should be levied upon those institutions which were kept up by voluntary contributions. Their exemption would entail a very small burden indeed upon the general ratepayer; and they ought to bear this burden, for it was a well-known fact that all benevolent institutions were supported, not by the general body of ratepayers, but by a comparatively small section, who contributed to any charity, while the great majority contributed to none.
  MR. DALRYMPLEsaid, he would support the measure, though he felt some doubt whether it was altogether fair that the landed property belonging to these institutions should be exempted from rating. Institutions of this kind had a great effect in keeping down the rates, by the relief which they afforded to those who would otherwise become a burden upon the public.
  MR. BAINESsaid, he wished to add his voice in favour of the Bill. The feeling in Leeds was very strongly in favour of this claim. In that town a new infirmary had lately been built, altogether by voluntary benevolence, at a cost of £120,000; and if made subject to rates, the amount would be most oppressive. Hitherto the parish officers of Leeds had shown their good sense and feeling by declining to rate the medical charities of the town, none of which possessed endowments. For three centuries hospitals had been exempted from rating, and it seemed to him that that exemption had obtained the force of prescription. The interests of humanity very clearly demanded that poor rates
  1816
  should not be exacted from hospitals. These institutions were of extreme benefit where the workmen were peculiarly subject to accidents from machinery, inasmuch as they received there the aid of the highest surgical and medical skill that could be afforded to them. Since hospitals tended materially to reduce the rates, by doing work which would otherwise have to be done by the union, it was unjust to tax them on behalf of the union. The rating of hospitals, in fact, was simply taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another; and he therefore maintained that common sense as well as consistency required that the exemption of hospitals from the poor rates, which had existed from the time of Elizabeth, should be continued.
  MR. P. WYKEHAM-MARTINsaid, he might refer, in support of the Bill, to a circumstance that had occurred in the hospital established in the city represented by him (Rochester). The rates levied on that hospital had the effect of closing four beds, and to that extent had caused the rejection of persons in urgent need of assistance.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, this was one of those measures which it was a great luxury to support if one could, and which it was somewhat painful to be obliged to oppose. But this must be looked upon as part of the great question of exemptions, which could not be well dealt with piecemeal. He would remind the House that this was not the only proposal for exemptions which was to come under the notice of Parliament. A similar proposal was about to be made with regard to Sunday schools and various other charitable institutions; and in determining upon the course to be taken upon the present occasion, the House ought to consider whether all institutions founded and supported by voluntary contributions should have their funds supplemented by public local taxation; for, to be exempt from taxes, was to have a grant from the taxes. There was one parish in the metropolis in which one-fortieth of the whole rateable property belonged to charitable institutions, and in that case, if those institutions were exempted, the effect would be very seriously to increase the rates paid by the other parishioners. The question was whether the parishioners were to be compelled to become subscribers in this way to the hospitals? St. George's Hospital, which

  1817
  had been referred to, and other hospitals did great service in cases of sudden accident, as well as to the sick poor; and a very largo proportion of the inmates of those institutions did not belong to the pauper class at all. Under these circumstances, it was fair to ask whether the particular localities in which these hospitals were situated were to have their rates increased for an object from which the whole country benefited? If they once entered upon these exemptions, it was difficult to say where the line should be drawn; for, if they exempted hospitals and infirmaries, it would be followed by similar demands, first from Sunday schools, and afterwards from night schools and other schools for the poor, working men's institutes and working men's Colleges. It would be a far better principle, if they were to recognize the title of hospitals to receive support from the public purse, that it should be done directly by a grant of money, instead of indirectly at the expense of the parishioners of the particular parishes in which hospitals were situated. He trusted, therefore, that the House would deny itself the pleasure of passing this Bill.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he entirely concurred in the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. He might bring to their recollection the case of that magnificent hospital—St. Thomas's—which was being constructed on the other side of the river on ground formerly occupied by houses which were rated for parochial burdens. If this Bill passed the parishioners would have to pay larger contributions, in order that that hospital, which was as much a national as a parochial institution, should be exempted. It was a question whether there should not be some special system of taxation applicable to charities; but it would be inexpedient to exempt one class of charitable institutions from local taxation in the way proposed by this Bill.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid, he should give his support to the Bill, and should be glad to see its principle carried further by the exemption of all institutions supported by voluntary contributions from local rates. Why should persons who subscribed money to a charitable object be taxed for being charitable?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that the Bill involved an important prin-
  1818
  ciple. He had received strong representations on the subject from hospitals in the county which he represented, which were anxious to be exempted from taxation. Formerly he was inclined to think that their claims for exemption were well founded, but since then he had held Office in the Poor Law Board, and had made more careful inquiry into the matter, and the result was that the more he inquired the more clearly it had appeared to him that the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the President of the Poor Law Board) was correct, and that it would be detrimental to the other ratepayers if these institutions were exempted. The subject had been carefully considered by a Select Committee in 1857, and they had expressed a similar opinion. It would be a great mistake if the House should agree to the second reading of the Bill.
  And it being now a Quarter before Six o'clock,
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow,
  House adjourned at Ten minutes before Six o'clock.