Sitting of 6 May 1879

MINUTES.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Resolution [May 5] reported—Customs and Inland Revenue Laws.
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)—Second Reading—Blackburn and Over Darwen Tramways; Blackpool Extension and Improvement*; Leicester Corporation*; Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Gas*; South Shields Gas*; Walton-on-the Naze and Frinton Improvement*.
Considered as amended—Houghton-le-Spring District Gas*.
Third Reading—Llandudno Improvement (Lords)*.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Trustees Liability* [157].
Second Reading—Public Health Act (1875) Amendment (Interments)* [61].
Committee—Valuation of Property [71]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Trustee Acts Consolidation and Amendment* [106].
Considered as amended—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation* [153].
Third Reading—Prosecution of Offences* [147]; Public Health (Scotland) Act (1867) Amendment* [107], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  BLACKBURN AND OVER DARWEN TRAMWAYS BILL (by Order).

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House to the fact that this and various other Bills now

    1807
    before the House involved the question of the use of steam or other mechnical power upon tramways. It would be within the knowledge of the House that two Committees had been appointed to consider that subject—one last Session, and one during the Session which preceded that. One of them was presided over by his hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt), and the one which sat last year by the hon. Member for Warwick (Mr. A. Peel).Both of those Committees reported to the House at some length, and recommended that extensive powers should be given to the Board of Trade for the purpose of regulating the use of steam or mechanical power on tramways. The Bills introduced into the House of Commons last year, containing provisions authorizing the use of steam or mechanical power on tramways, passed through that House on condition that certain Amendments should be inserted to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee, but were stopped by the action of the other House of Parliament, who appointed a Committee to consider the question. He had felt it his duty to arrest the progress of the present and other Bills raising the same question, until the Report of the Committee of the House of Lords was in the possession not only of Members of the other House of Parliament, but also of hon. Members in that House(the House of Commons). The Report of the Lords' Committee was published immediately after the Easter Holidays, and the House of Lords consented to communicate that Report to the House of Commons. Since that time, the Board of Trade had been engaged in drawing up clauses to carry out the recommendations of that Report, which it was proposed to refer to the consideration of the Committees appointed to inquire into the Bills now before the House, and he had had the opportunity of conferring with the Board of Trade upon the subject more than once. It appeared to him that the clauses which the Board of Trade proposed to insert in these Bills were such as would carry out the recommendations of the Committee of the House of Lords, and also there commendations of the two Committees which sat in the House of Commons during the last and the previous Session. He was bound, however, to say that those recommendations,
    1808
    in his opinion, fell short of what was really required in regard to the question. He felt it his duty to point out to the House that they were only at the beginning of legislation in reference to this description of locomotion, and that, in future, steam tramways would be likely to become popular and to spread very widely over the whole of the country. The comparative restriction of the extension of the ordinary tramways had been mainly due to the expense of working them by horses; and as soon as steam, or other mechanical power, was duly authorized, they might expect to see a great many of the public roads used as tramway roads. That would be an important change in the system of locomotion generally, and he hoped that any Committee before whom the Bills would go would carefully consider the matter. It could not be denied that at the present moment the tramway companies had an opportunity of establishing tramway lines upon a basis which was very easy when compared with the expense and obligations imposed upon railway companies. Bail way companies had to acquire property at immense expense before they could construct their lines; but it was proposed in these Tramway Bills to authorize the construction of a sort of railway on property which belonged to the public, and for which nothing whatever was paid by the promoters of the Bills. That, of course, demanded very great consideration; and he wished that the Board of Trade, or one of the Committees which had inquired into the question, had recommended the insertion of a clause requiring that the whole expense of maintaining a road upon which as team tramway was authorized should, be borne by the tramway company. He thought that that was not only a reasonable, but a desirable object; although, of course, he might be told that the local authorities, who were interested in the matter, were the persons to move in it. But he wished he could believe that they were always ready to take the initiative in the interests of the public. There might be reasons why the local authorities should abstain from raising the question; and he should, therefore, be glad if the Committee before whom these Bills would go would consider it their duty to impose on the tramway companies, without reference to the local

    1809
    authorities, the whole expense of maintaining the road over which the tramway ran. There was another point to which he also desired to call the attention of the House and of the Committee—namely, whether it was not desirable to fix some hard-and-fast line as the minimum width of a road over which a tramway should be allowed to travel. It was frequently the case that for five or six miles the tramway would pass along a road of tolerable width, and then there would come a short portion of the road, sometimes in the middle of it, which was extremely narrow. The local authority, for some reason best known to themselves, might authorize or sanction the construction of a tramway under such circumstances without taking steps to enforce the widening of the road; and he had never heard of a Bill or a Provisional Order being refused in consequence of the tramway passing through a small portion of a road of less width than in the public interests generally it was necessary to secure. It was desirable, therefore, that some rule should be fixed as to the width of the road, which neither the Board of Trade nor the local authority should have the power of dispensing with; and a general regulation should be laid down that no tramway should be authorized, any portion of which was proposed to be constructed in a road narrower than a certain fixed limit. If a company promoting a Bill desired to make a tramway in a road, any portion of which was narrower than this limit, it should be necessary for them to acquire space on both sides of the road for the enlargement of the roadway before being allowed to apply to Parliament. He did not wish to detain the House further upon the Bill in its present stage, because he was aware that it must now go before Committees of both Houses, and the Report of the Lords' Committee had made the matter ripe for the consideration of the Committee upstairs. He had, however, thought it right to call the attention of the House to the matter, because a very important principle was involved. Of course, there were other points arising out of the question, which must hereafter engage the attention of the House. One of them was the locus standi to be allowed to railway companies, where competition was proved to exist between their lines
    1810
    and those which were proposed to be laid down by tramway companies. It appeared to him that the existing rule which had been established in regard to the locus standi of a railway company could not longer be maintained where tramways were to be worked by steam. When they were so worked, they would practically become railroads, and he should venture, towards the end of the Session, when the Standing Orders in regard to Private Bills came under revision, to call attention to the subject; and he should feel much indebted to any hon. Member of the House who would make any suggestion to him in this direction, with the view of giving a locus standi to all railway companies whose interests were likely to be affected by the construction of a steam tramway. He did not think there was anything further that he need add on the present occasion. He had arrested, as he had already said, the progress of these Tramway Bills up to the present time, with the view of obtaining the latest information as to the wishes of Parliament on the subject; but now that the recommendations of the Lords' Committee were in the hands of hon. Members, it was not desirable to arrest their progress further. He therefore hoped the House would allow the present Bill to be read a second time; and, as he had just intimated, he should be grateful for any suggestion which might be made by any Member of the House with the view of securing for these Bills that they should be made as perfect and valuable as possible.
    MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he was not aware that this Bill was down on the Paper for consideration on that day, and he felt that the House would be indisposed at present to enter upon many of the subjects which his hon. Friend (Mr. Raikes) had alluded to, and upon many points connected with the question of tramways upon which a debate might easily be raised. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) simply wished now to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to some of the observations which had just fallen from his hon. Friend. In respect to the additional charge proposed to be laid upon tramway companies, the suggestion that tramway companies should be made responsible for the maintenance of the roads over which their lines passed, and the proposal to give the railway

    1811
    companies a locus standi to oppose competing tramway lines, were questions of very considerable importance, which were not to be decided at once and off-hand. His hon. Friend had called attention to the fact that the permission to use steam on tramways would popularize them to a certain extent, and had pointed out the condition in which they now stood in regard to railways—the fact being that in the one case the railway company bought the property and made and maintained its own road, while in the other the tramway company had no property of their own at all, but simply made use of roads practically made for them by other people. He wished to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the extreme importance of the question, and the bearing it had upon another question—namely, the imposition of the passenger duty. He was not there to advocate the imposition of any fresh tax upon locomotion; but he was anxious to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if they were to sanction the use of steam or other mechanical power upon tramways, it would be a stronger ground than ever for the removal of this most unjust tax, which now operated to the great prejudice of the railway companies and of the travelling public.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERdid not entirely recognize the parallel which had been drawn by the right hon. Member for Sandwich (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) between the position of steam tramways and railroads in reference to the passenger tax; but, at the same time, he thought there was a great deal to be said in favour of considering the propriety of applying the tax now levied upon railways to tramways. Indeed, he was at present in communication with his noble Friend the President of the Board of Trade (Viscount Sandon) upon the subject. It was a matter which had aroused a good deal of attention, and he hoped that some arrangement might be arrived at.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREremarked that in drawing a comparison between the tramway companies and the railway companies it should be recollected that, in the latter case, the concessions to the railway companies were perpetual; while, in the former, under the General Tramways Act, the powers of the tramway companies were limited for a period of
    1812
    30 years, after which the local authorities had power to purchase the tramways, paying for them only their actual value. This would, of course, give the local authorities an opportunity of making fresh terms, if necessary, with the tramway companies for a reduction of fares, or otherwise. Further, if a tramway was found to be a nuisance to a neighbourhood, it might be done away with altogether. In that respect, they differed very essentially from railway companies; and in considering the terms to be imposed upon tramway companies, it appeared to him that this essential difference should be borne in mind.
    MR. BRISTOWEsaid, he was not going to oppose the second reading of the Bill; but he wished cordially to endorse the suggestions which had been made by the Chairman of Ways and Means. Those suggestions were well worth the consideration of the House. He (Mr. Bristowe) had had an opportunity of seeing a good deal in connection with these matters, having sat as one of the Referees upstairs, when the questions which the Chairman of Ways and Means called attention to had been brought prominently before him. Over and over again he had felt it a hardship that a railway company should be excluded by the Rules of the House from having a locus standi to oppose what was on the face of it a competing Bill, running over the same ground that was already occupied by a railway company. To his mind, that was a very serious matter. He had some experience of it, and between the present time and a later period of the Session he hoped he should have some information to give to his hon. Friend upon the question, which he believed would be of some use. Another point which had been alluded to was well worthy of consideration—namely, the position of the local authority in cases of this kind. No doubt, the Standing Orders of the House provided, at present, that the local authority should be the only portion of the public who should be at liberty to enter a practical protest against these schemes; but the local authority was very often unwilling to enter upon a contest upstairs, which they knew was generally a very expensive affair. They were naturally unwilling to enter into a contest which would inevitably raise the rates; and, therefore, he should like to

    1813
    see an alteration which would have the effect of insuring that the interests of the frontagers and of the general public should be properly considered. He would not oppose the second reading of the present Bill, and he was very glad that his hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means had taken up the question.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he was not going to prolong the debate. He only wished to say that this was a question of a most important character, and should not be lightly dealt with. He hoped his noble Friend at the head of the Board of Trade (Viscount Sandon) would find some way of introducing into the Tramways Act some modification of the existing provisions of that Act with regard to the use of steam upon tramways. Nothing was more important than that the public should be protected against the use of steam upon very narrow roads, and the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Chester (Mr. Raikes) upon this subject were most pertinent. He had no doubt, when the Committee upstairs came to the consideration of the question, they would arrive at the conclusion that the expense of maintaining the roads on which these steam tramways were to be placed should mainly be borne by the tramway companies, and that a general law to that effect should be enacted. He was decidedly of opinion that some regulation as to the use of steam on tramways should be laid down in a general Act of Parliament. They wanted something to show that these tramway companies were not to ride rough-shod over everybody, and to make what use they pleased of the roads; and with that view, he trusted the attention of his noble Friend the President of the Board of Trade would be called to the subject, so that he might consider what amendment of the Tramways Act was necessary.
    MR. SULLIVANthought it was important that they should consider the advantage derived by the public from the increased facilities afforded for locomotion. For his own part, he always rejoiced when he heard a proposition brought before the House for giving greater facilities to the public. It was necessary, he thought, that the House should take a very wide view of the question, and he had simply risen to say
    1814
    that he heard with regret—he would not say with alarm—an intimation, which he hoped he had misunderstood, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that there was some idea of considering whether the tramway passengers might not be taxed as well as the railway passengers were. As to levelling up or levelling down in regard to taxation upon locomotion, it should not be forgotten that a Select Committee of the House had already condemned as objectionable this idea of taxing locomotion. It would be of no assistance to the railway companies, which bore the burden alone just now, to level the taxation up by bringing the tramways to the same obnoxious level, and by perpetuating the injustice now confined to railways. He trusted that, after communicating with the Board of Trade on the subject, Her Majesty's Government would come to the conclusion that it would be most objectionable to impose the passenger duty upon tramways, and that neither in the present, nor in the next Session, would such a proposition be submitted to Parliament.
    MR. ASSHETONsaid, he was all for levelling up, and not for levelling down, and he thought it would be of advantage to tax the passengers by tramways as well as those by railways. He was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) refer to the concession to tramway companies as only being for a limited period, as if that was a reason why the concession should be made to them for nothing. The right to travel over the public roads for a limited period ought not to give them that right for nothing whatever, at the expense of the ratepayers. In point of fact, the Legislature had hitherto acted upon the principle of giving away other people's property, and he, for one, decidedly protested against it. He was certainly not so much alarmed as his hon. and gallant Friend behind him (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), at the prospect of steam on tramways; but he certainly was alarmed to some extent as to the position which tramways might occupy in very narrow roads. It was a point to which attention had already been called by the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means, who, in what he had stated, had thoroughly exhausted the subject. He only wished to reiterate the view of

    1815
    his hon. Friend, that some minimum width of road should be fixed by Parliament as the narrowest road over which tramways would be allowed to run. He trusted that something would be done in this direction now that the subject had been brought under the notice of the Board of Trade and of Her Majesty's Government.
    MR. D. TAYLORsaid, it was suggested that some special instructions should be given to the Committee to impose the charge for the maintenance of the roads upon the companies seeking to construct tramways, and that provisions to that effect should be inserted in the Tramway Bills. He wished to submit to the consideration of the House whether it would be a wise or a proper obligation to impose upon the tramway companies. If such an arrangement were come to, a difference of opinion might constantly arise as to the state of repair in which a road should be kept, and the interest of the tramway companies in keeping the roads in sufficient repair would be different from that of the rest of the public who required to use them. He would ask if it would not be better that a certain amount should be fixed as the user of the road, or that a certain sum should be paid to the local authority for the right to use it? It appeared to him that an arrangement of that kind would work much more satisfactorily than any arrangement to bind the tramway companies to keep the roads in repair. He suggested that the point was one which, at any rate, was worth consideration.
    MR. BRIGGShoped that no unnecessary delay would take place in passing the Bill now before the House. The construction of a steam tramway in this particular locality would, he thought, be a matter of very great convenience. He did not believe there were any Petitions against it which would carry any very great weight with the Committee, and he thought the suggestion of the Chairman of Ways and Means was a fair one, that all the questions which had been raised should be discussed and threshed out in Committee in a manner which was impossible on that occasion. He therefore hoped that the discussion would now cease, and that the Bill would be read a second time.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

QUESTIONS.

  INDIA (FINANCE, &c.)—TWO MILLION LOAN.—QUESTION.
  MR. FAWCETTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When he proposes to introduce a Bill to give effect to the proposal to advance £2,000,000 to India, free of interest; and, whether he can inform the House on what day the India Budget will be considered?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the most convenient course, I think, will be that we should take the Indian Budget—the statement of the condition of Indian finance—first, and then follow it with the proposal for an advance from this country to India. I propose to take Thursday, the 22nd instant, as the day for the discussion of Indian finance; and I believe the most convenient course will be that my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State should move on that day the Indian Loan Bill—a Bill for raising a loan for the Indian Government, and probably on that Motion may come the discussion of the financial position of India. After that I should propose to make a loan from this country to India.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, that already one or two Notices had been given on the Indian Budget with regard to the necessity of enforcing greater economy in Indian expenditure; and if the bringing forward of these Motions would have the effect of opposing the Loan Bill, it would place many hon. Members in a difficulty, because many who would vote for the exercise of greater economy might not like to vote against the Loan Bill.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would try, in the meantime, to arrange the most convenient way of bringing forward this question; but he could not name an earlier day than the 22nd.

  TREATY OF BERLIN—THE GREEK FRONTIER.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. MONKasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the announcement of the failure of the negotiations between the Powers for a Conference of Ambassadors at Constantinople to settle the Greek Frontier Question, contained in the "Morning Post"

  1817
  of yesterday, is true; and that the failure is owing to the refusal of the English Government to entertain the proposal?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, since the hon. Member mentioned this subject, I have read the announcement in The Morning Post, and the announcement is to this effect—that a telegram had been received from Vienna announcing the failure of the negotiations carried on between the Powers with a view to bring about the assembling of a Conference of Ambassadors at Constantinople to settle the Greek Frontier Question. Sir, the French Government has made a proposal to the Powers, and it is not true that it has failed. The next statement in the telegram is that the cause of the alleged failure is affirmed to be the refusal of the English Government to entertain the proposal. Well, Sir, as there has been no failure, of course that also is untrue. Put there is also another inaccuracy, at any rate, in the telegram—namely, the statement that the proposal was not entertained in consequence of the English Government. Upon that I have to say that, even if the proposal had failed, which it certainly has not, it would be untrue to say that it was owing to anything that has been done by the English Government.
  MR. MONK: Will the hon. Gentleman lay on the Table the proposal of M. Waddington, and any Correspondence that has taken place -which is not of a confidential nature?
  MR. BOURKE: The negotiations are still going on, and the details are not settled. I have no doubt that eventually all the Papers will be laid on the Table of the House; but, of course, hon. Gentlemen will see that it would be impossible to produce them at present.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Will the Under Secretary kindly state whether it would be correct to say that the principle of mediation has been accepted by all the Powers, and that the Conference is in a fair way of being held?
  MR. BOURKE: Yes; I think I may answer that Question in the affirmative. The principle of mediation has been affirmed by all the Powers. Of course, the details of the mode in which that mediation should be carried out are now under discussion.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  VALUATION OF PROPERTY BILL.
  (Mr. Sclater-Booth, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Salt.)
  VALUATION OF PROPERTY BILL.

    [BILL 71.] COMMITTEE.
    [Progress 21 st March.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    (2.) Making of Valuation List.
    Clause 6 (Making of valuation list by overseers).
    MR. RAMSAYmoved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 34, after "parish," insert—
    "And in estimating the yearly value of lands and hereditaments under this Act, the same shall be taken to be the rent at which, one year with another, such lands and hereditaments might, in their actual state, be reasonably expected to let from year to year; and where such lands and hereditaments consist of woods, copse, or underwood, the yearly value of the same shall be taken to be the rent at which such lands and hereditaments might, in their natural state, be reasonably expected to let from year to year, as pasture or grazing lands; and where such lands and hereditaments are bonâ fide let for a yearly rent conditioned as the fair annual value thereof, without premium, fine, or consideration other than the rent, such rent shall be deemed and taken to be the yearly rent or value of such lands and hereditaments in terms of this Act: Provided always, That if such lands and hereditaments be let upon a lease, the stipulated duration of which is more than 21 years from the date of entry under the same, or, in the case of minerals, more than 31 years from such date of entry, the rent payable under such lease shall not necessarily be assessed as the yearly rent or value of such lands and hereditaments, but such yearly rent or value shall be ascertained in terms of this Act irrespective of the amount of rent payable under such lease, and the lessee under such lease shall be deemed and taken to be also the proprietor of such lands and hereditaments in the sense of this Act, but shall he entitled to relief from the actual proprietor thereof, and to deduction from the rent payable by him to such actual proprietor, of such proportion of all assessments laid on upon the valuations of such lands and hereditaments made under this Act, and payable by such lessee, as proprietor in the sense of this Act, as shall correspond to the rent payable by such lessee to such actual proprietor, as compared with the amount of such valuation."
    He said, that the Amendment which he had to move was as an addition to the clause, and it involved important considerations, which he thought would require the very earnest attention of the

    1819
    Committee. This Bill had been introduced to secure uniformity in the valuation of property in England; and in proposing the Amendment which he was about to submit, his view was not only to secure an uniform valuation throughout England, but throughout Great Britain. As it stood, the Bill was not framed in such terms as to do anything to secure that uniformity which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had expressed his desire to see established. A committee of overseers in each parish were to make up a valuation list once in five years, and they were to ascertain the rateable value of the property upon the basis prescribed by the Bill itself. The mode prescribed for making such valuation was not in any respect different from the practice that prevailed in England at the present time; and, therefore, in his opinion, the continued application of that system in England, as proposed in the measure, would not secure the uniformity of valuation which the House desired to establish. He had been told that the valuation which he sought to secure was not suitable to the feelings or the sentiments of the majority of the English people. No one in that House could desire more than he did to consider the feelings and sentiments, and even the prejudices, of the people of England; but he did not believe that the ratepayers of England were so enamoured of the expensive and complicated process which now prevailed, and which the Bill was intended to perpetuate, as to prefer it to a more simple plan, which would secure the uniformity which was so much desired. The objection which was raised to his proposal was that uniformity would not be secured, inasmuch as in England there were numerous instances where tenants held lands at less than their actual value, and that landlords continued to maintain tenants in possession at a rent lower than might be obtained by open competition; so that it was erroneous to assume, with such a state of affairs, that the Scotch principle could be applied to England. But it should be remembered that in Scotland also there were numerous estates where land was let at a less rent than would probably be obtained for it if thrown into the market; and no one at all acquainted with the country could doubt that that
    1820
    was the fact. Nevertheless, that fact did not affect the uniformity of the valuation secured in Scotland, and the Amendment which he moved simply sought to establish throughout Great Britain the uniformity of valuation already established in Scotland by the Act 17 & 18 Vict. c. 91. That Act had operated with satisfaction to the owners and occupiers alike during the period from 1854 to the present time, and should be extended to England. He could not conceive why, if a permanent change in the law of the valuation of property in England were contemplated, it should be desirable to revert to the practice of the past, and to continue to allow the gross and rateable value of property to be estimated according to the opinion of individuals appointed in each locality. Yet that was, in effect, the proposal of the Bill. The definition of gross value given in the Bill itself corresponded very much with the recommendations of the Select Committee appointed in 1867, which stated that the gross value should be—
    "The annual rent which a tenant might reasonably be expected, taking one year with another, to pay for a hereditament, if the tenant undertook to pay all usual tenant's rates, and taxes, and tithe commutation, or rent-charges, or any modus, or possession real, in lieu of tithes, if any, and if the landlord undertook to bear the cost of repairs and insurance, and the other expenses, if any, necessary to maintain the hereditament in a state to command the rent."
    That seemed to him to be a reasonable proposal; but what he desired was not that the rent which a person might assume a tenant should be reasonably expected to pay should be the basis of valuation, but that the rent that the tenant actually did pay should be taken as the sole criterion of the value. The rent depended upon the agreement which was arrived at between the proprietor and the occupier; and he could not conceive it possible that there could be any good reason shown why, if a rule of that kind were adopted in one part of the Kingdom, it should not be applied to the other parts. If it were true that land was so much cheaper in England than in Scotland as to render it necessary to apply a different rule in the one country from that established in the other, surely some kind of evidence could be found to justify such diversity. It was only to be expected that the tenant-farmers of England should be

    1821
    found wealthier than those of Scotland; but he was not aware that there was any reason for such a statement, or that the cultivation of land was better or carried to a greater extent in England than in Scotland. On the contrary, considering the different quality of the soil of England from that of Scotland, he believed that the farms of England were cultivated to a loss extent than those of Scotland, and that instead of the farmers of England possessing greater wealth than the farmers of Scotland as a class, it would be found that they were rather less enterprizing, and possessed less wealth, in proportion to the amount of land which they occupied, than the farmers of Scotland. Believing that to be the case, he felt it his duty to put before the House a few matters which he thought affected Scotland unfavourably; and with reference to them he would say that, according to the gross valuation of Scotland, it was the fact that the proportion of the value of real estate in Scotland corresponded closely with the population of the country as compared with England, and that in itself was sufficient to show—and anyone acquainted with the two countries would be satisfied with regard to the matter—that there was some injustice done to Scotland under the present system. With regard to the present law, he might be told that this Bill was not intended to alter it; but be should contend that it did alter it, and made it worse, not only in principle, but in practice, and that was the foundation for his great objection to it. He thought that the Bill would be a very important and a very radical interference with the existing practice, and it seemed to him that it would be more satisfactory to the people of England—that it would give greater satisfaction to the owners and occupiers of land in England—and would be more in accordance with justice, if the law now existing in his own country were adopted for England. In the last Report of the Board of Inland Revenue, they had the fact before them that the gross estimated rental of real property in England and Wales, including the Metropolis, amounted to £150,207,902, and from that amount £19,891,912 was in respect of railways, gasworks, waterworks, canals, &c, which were not chargeable with Income Tax under Schedule A, Now, in Scotland, the
    1822
    gross annual value of real property was £21,719,117. Of that sum £3,667,899 related to property not chargeable under Schedule A. In the Metropolis the valuation lists in force were binding for the Income Tax and house duty and assessment; but in Scotland the local county rates were levied upon the gross rental. Therefore the Income Tax was taken solely from the valuation roll, and upon that all the county rates, as well as Income Tax, were levied. He had not yet heard any good reason for opposing the introduction into England of the system which would bring about the uniformity desired. He thought he could show that the allegation that the people of Scotland were unequal in wealth to the people of England was borne out by facts. He bad stated that the population of Scotland was nearly one-seventh of the population of England, and that the amount levied in respect of Income Tax exceeded that proportion. Now, if the people of England were really richer than the people of Scotland, that would not be just. If the Bill were passed in the present shape, it would perpetuate and aggravate this injustice to Scotland; and he was certain no right hon. or hon. Member on the opposite side of the House could desire to perpetuate such an injustice. That it was unjust might be best seen from the amounts respectively levied in England in respect of the inhabited house duty. The annual value of houses in England charged with the inhabited house duty was £47,476,028; whereas, in Scotland, it was only £2,910,571, or about one-sixteenth part. So that, in respect of the inhabited house duty, the houses charged in Scotland were equal in value to one-sixteenth of those charged in England; and when they came to the houses which were not charged with house duty, they had £43,703,737 in England as the annual value, and £7,525,189 in Scotland, or something less than one-sixth. One-sixteenth was the proportion which the inhabited house duty bore to what he believed would represent the fair incidence of taxation upon Scotland as compared with England, if it was equitably and fairly adjusted according to the condition of the people of that country. No one acquainted with the mountainous ridges, wild plains, and the barren fields of Scotland, could possibly conceive that

    1823
    there was any comparison with the fertile plains and rich valleys of England. Moreover, anyone knowing the two countries must be aware that the arable land under cultivation and green pasture in England was seven times in extent of the arable land and green pasture that existed in Scotland. A great part of the lands of Scotland were barren and of little or no value; and he was of opinion, therefore, that it was necessary that that fact should guide the House in dealing with this question and induce it to alter the present system, so that uniformity might be established throughout Great Britain. He had already referred to the defective practice of this country; but he could give, from his own experience, an example where for 12 years it was attempted to make up a valuation list without the aid of the rules which were laid down for guidance in the Valuation Act. He did not want to weary the House; but it might be sufficient to state that after trying to make up the valuation list of the County of Argyll from the year 1843 to 1855 as accurately as possible on a system corresponding very much to that which was proposed in the Bill before the House, instead of being found to be correct, the increments of the annual increase during that period only amounted to £10,500; whereas, under the operation of the Valuation Act, under which the rent paid by the tenant was made the sole criterion of value, the increase in the first year was £34,000; in the 12 years which elapsed from 1855 to 1867 there was an increase of £66,000; and during the 12 years from 1867 to 1879 there was an increase of £82,000. He knew that hon. Gentlemen sometimes shrank from altering the valuation, because they were of opinion that the rates increased in proportion; but, in point of fact, in the instance he was mentioning, the rates were reduced in proportion. For example, in the parish where he lived during the period to which he referred, of 24 years, from the increase in the annual value of the lands, whereas the poor-rate levied was formerly 3s. it had now been reduced to 1s. 6d. in the pound. This showed that it was not a hardship to the taxpayer that the valuation should be increased, for if the valuation were increased equally over the whole area over which the assessor was appointed, it had the
    1824
    effect of securing uniformity of valuation without detriment to anyone who paid the rates. He therefore felt that, without some such principle as he proposed being accepted as the basis for valuation, the Bill before the House would not only not secure the object they had in view, but would not be a permanent settlement of the question if it became law. He could not conceive that the House would go on imposing a positive injustice on the people of Scotland in making them pay higher rates than the people of England in respect of the same taxes, and if that was not to be perpetuated, they would require to take care that the same rule should be adopted in England as was adopted in Scotland to make up the valuation. Instead of the valuation of Scotland being one-seventh of that of England, it would be about one-tenth, or possibly one-twelfth. The Amendment was really an instruction to the overseers as to what they should do in making a valuation. On the second reading of the Bill, complaint was made that it would be difficult to get the annual value of lands let on lease; but that was a complete fallacy, because the value could be ascertained from the owner and the occupier alike by causing them to sign returns to the person by whom the valuation list was to be made out. Some reference had also been made to the difficulty of obtaining the real value of land let on lease; but the clause provided for that by stating that when a lease was for a longer period than 21 years the occupier of such land should be held to be the owner. He would beg to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
    MR. J. G. HUBBARDwished to know whether the purpose of the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay) in proposing the Amendment was to introduce the rent paid as the test of value, or, on the other hand, whether he proposed to supersede the whole course of English legislation on the question now before the House by the introduction of the Scotch system of valuation as brought into operation in 1854? If the first alternative was the one which he suggested, he (Mr. J. G. Hubbard), for one, would gladly agree with him, for he thought that taking the rent as the element of value was a remedy calculated to obviate the absurdities of the present system. But if

    1825
    the hon. Member desired to supersede altogether the system before the House, and to introduce the Scotch system of 1854, he ventured to think that the hon. Member altogether misinterpreted the meaning of the Scotch Act. It was true that that Act itself proposed the annual value of the lands as a test for rating purposes, and the Queen's taxes were levied upon the property as standing in the valuation roll. But when the hon. Member said that the poor rate in Scotland was levied upon the same basis, he was at a loss to reconcile that statement with the other facts of the case. The hon. Member had referred to the valuation of land in Scotland in 1865; but one of the measures passed with the object of carrying out that valuation, so far from speaking of rent as a criterion of value, provided that the power introduced in 1845 should not only be authorized to be exorcised, but its exercise was to be made imperative. That was the power by which it was provided that the deduction should be made for the costs of repairs and insurance, and other outgoings, and the adoption of that principle was repeated in subsequent paragraphs of the Bill. Moreover, it was said that the way in which the deductions had been made in Scotland was in accordance with the system which was then in progress in the legislation of England. Those Acts took the view that the Schedule of Deductions to be made throughout Scotland did not materially differ from those made in England. That was practically what was in the Bill before the House, and was consented to by the Board of Supervision in Scotland. The scheme, in fact, was that a value should be adopted, which was to be ascertained by making the deductions from the gross rental as required by Section 37.
    MR. RAMSAY, in order to save time, wished to give an explanation with regard to what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. G. Hubbard) had said. His object was not to impose upon the people of England the Scotch system. For two or three successive years he had been endeavouring to induce the House to adopt the Scotch system, and he had submitted a Bill for that purpose; but he had abandoned the hope of being able to carry that Bill, and, therefore, it was not his wish now to induce the House to introduce the
    1826
    whole of the Scotch system. But the principal point which he did wish to see adopted, as an essential principle, was that which the right hon. Gentleman approved, and that which was enunciated in the Amendment he had proposed. His sole object in placing it on the Paper at this stage of the Bill was for the purpose of bringing the principle under the notice of the overseers, not as a definition in the Interpretation Clause of the Bill, but as an instruction as to the principles upon which they should proceed. With reference to what the right hon. Member had said with regard to the practice in Scotland, as to giving a deduction, he would beg leave to say that a Bill was now before the House, introduced by the Government, to repeal Clause 37 of the Scottish Poor Law Act, to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred, and which was the sole ground for his observations. Under these circumstances, he thought that it would be seen that the 37th section of the 8 & 9 Vict, was practically repealed.
    MR. J. G. HUBBARDwould remind the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs that whatever opinion Her Majesty's Government might have of the 37th section of the Act referred to, yet he could not think that they were going to introduce that view into English legislation. If, however, the principle suggested by the hon. Member that rent should be a basis of valuation was properly defined, he, for one, should be very glad to see that introduced into the present Bill, in the proper place—namely, in Clause 108. The House would hardly consent to the introduction of the clause now suggested at that stage of the Bill, as it would practically stultify the whole process of legislation for the last 18 years.
    MR. BRISTOWEsaid, he was not able to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay). It seemed to him that the Amendment, if it meant anything, was practically a suggestion that Clause 108, so far as affected hereditaments, would take them back to the whole question of hypothetical tenants. In clause 108, the expression "gross value" was made to depend upon hypothetical tenancy; but it seemed to him that the proposed Amendment would be anything but an improvement. It was provided in the Amendment that in estimating the

    1827
    yearly value of lands and hereditaments under the Act, the same should be taken to be the rent at which one year with another such lands and hereditaments in their actual state might be reasonably expected to let from year to year. That, after all, was a question of the hypothetical tenant. The Amendment went on—
    "And where such lands and hereditaments consist of woods, copse, or underwood, the yearly value of the same shall be taken to be the rent at which such lands and hereditaments might, in their natural state, be reasonably expected to let from year to year as pasture or grazing lands, and where such lands and hereditaments are bonâ fide let for a yearly rent conditioned as the fair annual value thereof, without premium, fine, or consideration other than the rent, such rent shall be deemed and taken to be the yearly rent or value of such lands and hereditaments in terms of this Act."
    But supposing that the tenant to whom lands were let at yearly rent had improved them, then there came the question of the improved rateable value; and a difficulty arose in the interpretation of this clause. In his opinion, Clause 108, as it stood, was far better than the suggestion of the hon. Member. For these reasons, he could not support the Amendment.
    MR. CLARE READsaid, that as he had an Amendment on Clause 108 to the effect that—
    "Where a hereditament is bonâ fide let for a yearly rent, without fine or consideration other than the rent, such rent should be taken as the basis of valuation,"
    he should like to say a few words in support of the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay). He might say, however, that he was unable to agree with every portion of that Amendment. Nor did he think that they need complicate the subject by the introduction of matters relating to Scotland, such as the hon. Member had endeavoured to introduce. Neither did he think that it was necessary, in that place, to deal with lands and hereditaments let upon lease, for they were then entirely upon tenements let from year to year. He apprehended that the clause proposed by the hon. Member must be one taken from some Scotch Act. He did, however, entirely agree with this—that where "lands and hereditaments were let bonâ fide at a yearly rent conditioned on the fair annual value thereof without premium,
    1828
    fine, or consideration other than the rent," then that it was a sound principle to take such rent as the value of the lands. It had been said that it was impossible to consider both the value and the rent. In this instance, he thought that the rent must be taken as the criterion of value, or otherwise they would have an exceptionally high assessment in consequence of the action of the Surveyor of Taxes. He wished to draw attention to this, because it was the principle of the Bill, and he considered a dishonest principle, for it put matters in the hands of that functionary. The practical working of that system everyone knew. Where the rent was fair, and there was no fine, premium, or consideration, then the value ought not to be calculated at more than the rent. He would contend that the Surveyor of Taxes could upset any valuation that might be made. They might have a perfectly fair rent paid, or annual value fixed on the premises; but, according to his experience, it would be found that someone would be found to say that the property was worth more than it was let at. The question was, were they going to allow every assessment to be based upon rent paid, or were they going to let the Surveyor of Taxes place the value of the property at what figure he pleased? A man might let a farm for £200 a-year which everyone knew to be worth not £150; was it right to allow the landlord to pay property tax on the £150, although he actually received £200? It would be much better to take as the standard of value the actual rent paid, for, after all, rent was a fact and value only an opinion. It was no answer to this to say that in England there were many farms which were let at very low rents; but, with regard to farms let upon lease, he would exclude them from the operation of the clause. Leases prevailed more extensively in Scotland than in England, and that was one principal reason why rents were higher in that country than in England. He would exclude leases altogether from the clause, and deal solely with property held from year to year. If any reservation were made on the part of the landlord by which the tenant was bound to make some improvement, or by any means less rent was received by reason of any reservation, then he would exclude that case from the operation of the clause. He would go further, and say, that if a landlord

    1829
    persisted in encumbering an estate with ground game, or even with timber, and letting it at a low rent in consequence, then he should treat such a case as within the rule with regard to reservation. He believed that a fair rent put far more money into landlords' pockets than excessive rents in the long run. Having had considerable experience in the management of estates, he had found that more profit was made in the end by letting at fair rents than by demanding extortionate sums, though, unhappily, the present Law of Distress enabled an extortionate landlord to secure his rent at the expense of the other creditors. He could name two or three instances, especially in his own county, where the rent had been 10 s. an acre more than it ought to be. In recent years no one would take the farms, and, in consequence of that, farms which had been let at 30 s. an aero came to be let at 10 s. an acre. It would be monstrously unfair that the tenant who had taken a farm at a rent of 10 s. an acre should pay upon the valuation of 30 s. an acre, because the Surveyor asserted that that money had previously been paid for it. With regard to small farms, landlords had to lay out considerable sums of money, and it was only by so doing that they were let at the rents which they fetched. With respect to accommodation land, it had been said, how unfair to tax the poor tradesmen who might occupy his pasture land in the vicinity of a town, and pay £5 or £6 an acre for it, when it was only worth £2 or £3! To that argument all he could say was that the situation of land had a great deal to do with its value, and if £5 or £6 an acre were given for it, that might fairly be taken to be the value of the land. It seemed to him that in taxing the tradesman upon that rent they were only doing what the Poor Law said ought to be done—namely, compelling every man "to contribute according to his ability." If it were true, as it was sometimes said, that it was the owner and not the occupying tenants in England who paid the rates, then rent and rates ought to go together; and if a man paid 10 s. or 15 s. an acre rent more than the land was worth, and had to pay 2s. or 2s. 6d. extra for rates, he would not be disposed to continue to pay that rent. They had been told that this Act had been
    1830
    in force in the Metropolis, and had given universal satisfaction. To whom? To the Government officials, taxgatherers, and probably the Local Government Board, because it had increased the assessments so much that the people did not know the extra amount of rates which had been put upon them during the last few years. He was told, however, that this Act did not operate so much to the satisfaction of every householder; for it had not been satisfactory to householders to find their water rates and other taxes based upon an increased assessment, and they did not altogether approve of the scheme. No doubt, they would also be told that it was not the Surveyor of Taxes that had raised the assessments, but that the Act appointed an Assessment Committee having local control in the matter. An Assessment Committee might be composed of tradesmen who would think it right to assess the houses of gentlemen living on their means, or professional men, at a higher rate than they did their own shops. He had known a case where a medical man had thought it necessary to acquire a suitable residence in a particular district, and, in consequence of the high rent he paid, the assessments were raised all round. In Scotland, there was no doubt whatever that the Surveyor of Taxes virtually controlled the assessments. Where rent was taken as the basis of valuation, he must control the assessment. He would re-iterate that he was more in favour of general valuation than of the rent paid being taken as the value; but still, he thought, under this Bill, the rent was the best criterion. The Inland Revenue officers were very pleasant men; but he would quote one fact, to show what advantage even those high-class officials took of ignorant or careless landowners. The land tax was over £1,000,000, and should be deducted from the assessment before any property tax was paid; the annual sum allowed was only £450,000; so Schedule A was paid upon more than £500,000 than it ought to have been. The Surveyors were very quick in detecting mistakes where they were made against themselves; but they permitted ignorant persons to pay more than they ought, without any remonstrance, he would illustrate what he meant by giving an instance of the property tax assessment. In a very small parish just out-

    1831
    side his own, the principal occupiers were small farmers who had risen from the ranks. All were entitled to deductions from Schedule B, and many ought not to have paid at all. The sum charged under Schedule B at 3d. was over £11; but when the proper deductions were allowed, the amount was under £5, although the property tax now stood at 5d. In conclusion, he should not like to be the Government which appealed to the country some 15 months after this Bill passed into law—for he supposed the Government meant to pass it. The members of the Assessment Committees throughout the country were men of great influence and importance. This Bill would upset all their previous work, and would make them raise assessments generally, which would so harass and irritate the ratepayers that it would tend to reduce the Conservative majority in the next Parliament.
    MR. HIBBERTventured to call attention to the fact that the speech of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), as well as that of the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay), in moving the Amendment, although, no doubt, in Order at that stage of the Bill, yet did not properly apply to the clause under consideration. It seemed to him that the proper time for the discussion of the Amendment was when another clause was before the Committee. He rose for the purpose of asking his hon. Friend the Member for the Falkirk Burghs not to press his Amendment further; for he thought that, from the observations which had already been made, he must have observed that a proposal, like the present, to impose the Scotch law upon England, was one that would hardly be acceptable to the English people. In his opinion, it was very undesirable to change the entire system which had been so long in use in England, because a great deal of trouble had been taken in reducing it into shape, and there had been legal decisions on many points of it. If a change were made, the overseers would have great difficulty in knowing what the law was, or in what way they could make up the valuation lists. For these reasons, he thought that it was not desirable to bring the Scotch system into the English Bill; and, thinking that this was not the proper place to raise
    1832
    the discussion, he would ask his hon. Friend to withdraw the Amendment.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLwould also venture to request the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay) to withdraw his Amendment, for he considered that the question would be more properly discussed when they came to Clause 108 of the Bill. He did not think that it would be desirable now to come to any decision on the matter, for it would prevent them discussing it on a future occasion.
    MR. MUNTZthought the Committee was much indebted to the hon. Member who had introduced the Amendment (Mr. Ramsay), and also to the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), for the information which they had given. It should be remembered, however, that it was proposed by the Bill that the value of property should be taken at the gross rent, or what was equivalent to it. The value of the property from one year to another at the real rent obtainable was, in fact, the actual yearly value. Still, it was true that they were taxed upon a nominal value, and that the house duty and the property tax were both paid on this entirely imaginary value. Moreover, the landlord now contributed little more than two-thirds of the property tax on buildings, as the tenant could only deduct the tax from the actual amount paid for rent, although he had to pay the tax on the gross or imaginary value. He thought his hon. Friend had done good service by bringing the subject before the Committee; but he would recommend that the Motion should not be pressed to a Division.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTthought that there should be an expression of opinion from the front Treasury Bench on this subject, and that the Government should state whether they intended that the rent should be taken as the value of the property. It was his firm belief that if the question of taking rent were more or less settled, the Bill would do far more good than if left as it at present stood. It was unnecessary to wait until they came to Clause 108 for the expression of the opinion of Her Majesty's Government; for unless something was said now, the point would be raised on every possible occasion in the Bill, and would consequently very much hinder its progress. He was sorry not

    1833
    to see the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board in his place, and still more so for learning that illness was the reason for his absence. He thought that the Government should make up their minds and come to some determination upon this point, which was by no means an unimportant one. It seemed to him that they should not lose sight of the fact that if the rent was not taken as a criterion of value one of two things would happen. First, as now, the Surveyor of Taxes would raise the value to the highest possible point, or he would step in and state what he thought the value ought to be, looking at rents paid for similar land in the immediate neighbourhood, which was the great complaint now made in the assessment of lands, houses, and to the Income Tax. That was a very important matter to consider, and he thought that some indication of the opinion of the Government should be given. He had risen, not because he was able to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay), but because he considered that, although this was not absolutely the right time to discuss the matter, yet that it was very material in the interest of the measure that some expression of the views of Her Majesty's Government should be given on so important a point.
    MR. PELLwould also like to know whether the Government were willing to accept the principle that the rent was to be the criterion of value? For if they gave an early expression of their views a great deal of time would be saved. He did not intend to trouble the House with many observations on the matter at that period, but would reserve them for a future occasion. He would only state that he was distinctly in favour of the Amendment, and he did hope that the Government would at once say what their intentions were with regard to the point.
    MR. SALTvery much regretted—and he felt sure that the House would share his regret—that his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board was absent from his place through illness. Under these circumstances, he would endeavour to do his best to occupy his place. The hon. Members who had last spoken had commented upon the stage of the Bill in which the hon. Mem-
    1834
    ber for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay) had introduced his Amendment. He had no complaint to make against his hon. Friend—indeed, he rather thanked him for bringing the matter for ward—and this for two reasons. First, because the hon. Member, in the course of his interesting speech, had laid before the Committee his knowledge and experience with regard to the Scotch law; and, secondly, because, by the introduction of the subject at this point, he had cleared the way for the future progress of the Bill. Even if the hon. Member had succeeded in obtaining the approbation of the House to his Amendment as it stood, yet he (Mr. Salt) should still have been obliged to ask him to postpone the insertion of the Amendment to a later period of the Bill for technical reasons. But none the less he considered that the discussion which had taken place had been of considerable use, and had drawn forth some very interesting and valuable speeches. He must deal for a minute or two with the Amendment introduced by the hon. Member, and he hoped that he might be induced by the representations which had been made on both sides of the House to withdraw it, leaving the very important point raised by it for discussion on a subsequent clause. The hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs had dwelt upon the necessity or desirability of creating uniformity in these matters between England and Scotland. For his part, he would be very glad to see anything done which would bring the various parts of the Kingdom, and, he might add, Scotch and English Members, nearer together, whether in legislation or anything else; but he was afraid they had not yet arrived at the time when the Scotch people would be prepared to accept all the English laws, or the people resident in England to accede to the introduction of Scotch laws. He had noticed with some interest, when the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs was pressed with regard to the details of his Amendment, that he acknowledged he did not propose to bring all the details of the Scotch law into the Bill. Therefore, the uniformity, upon which the hon. Member laid so much stress, was not seriously proposed even by himself. Another point which he could not pass over was partly alluded to by some other hon. Members. The extreme inconvenience of introducing

    1835
    a new system, of procedure into the business of the country would, as stated, be very keenly felt. It should be remembered—and it was a point that one was very apt to forget—that an Act of Parliament began its history only when it left that House. People had to deal with complicated clauses not in the way of pleasant discussion as they were treated in that House, but in the endeavour to carry the provisions into daily use. Every fresh Act of Parliament had to be dealt with by those concerned in local matters with great care, and to their great honour it could be said that they evinced every desire to carry it into effect. By that means they gained a knowledge and experience of a system and gradually worked it into shape. And it should be remembered that an Act of Parliament, revolutionizing a whole system, would take many years before it could be worked into daily use and practice. At the present time, as hon. Members were well aware, the whole English procedure was different from that in use in Scotland, and the system in use in England was one to which the local bodies were accustomed by daily use and practice, and had been carried into effect by various decisions in Courts of Law, and after difficult and expensive inquiries. If, with the approval of the House, they endeavoured to introduce into the English system of valuation an entirely new method of procedure, everyone practically acquainted with the matter would know that such a course would give rise to endless inquiries and endless litigation. That was one strong reason why he could not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs. Further, he might go into the details of his Amendment, and point out the matters to which he could not assent; but after the discussion that had taken place it was not necessary to do so. He might, however, say that there was one part of the Amendment which he held to be perfectly sound in principle. It was the first part, which was to the effect that—
    "In estimating the yearly value of the lands and hereditaments under this Act, the same shall he taken to be the rent at which, one year with another, such lands and hereditaments might in their actual state he reasonably expected to let from year to year."
    That he held to be perfectly sound in principle. How far the insertion of the
    1836
    actual rent in the valuation list could be carried out in practice, having regard to the circumstances of the case, he did not know. It should be remembered that there were various circumstances under which property was held which would tend very much to complicate the matter. He noticed that the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), in giving his opinion, not merely upon the clause of the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs, but upon many parts of the Bill, and, indeed, he might say upon things in general, in the course of his argumentative and able speech, said, speaking of rent, that in the consideration of the clause relating to rent as the gross value leases must be left out of the question altogether. If, however, they were to consider the question of rent seriously, they must not deal with the matter in that pleasant way, and must not shut their eyes to the duty they had to discharge. In looking over a broad landscape they should not gaze merely upon the sunshine, and avoid observing the rain cloud. They must deal with the whole thing, and if they made rent the basis of valuation they must look at all the consequences of what they were doing. It would be necessary gravely to consider the whole question, and to remember that they were going to establish a new system; and that if they were going to get some new advantage from it they might possibly get some disadvantage, and then they could balance the advantage and disadvantage, and would be able to come to a conclusion. If rent, pure and simple, could always be taken as the value, that would, of course, be a most charming way of solving the difficulty; but they must deal with things as they found them, and with people as they were, and when they found that some circumstances—leases, charges, and other matters affecting rent materially—complicated the question, some solution of how they were to be dealt with must be arrived at before they could come to any decided opinion. He believed he was speaking the views of both his right hon. Friend who was in charge of the Bill (Mr. Sclater-Booth), and his right hon. Friend near him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), by saying that when the time came in the discussion of the Bill for the question to be raised of rent as the basis of valuation, the Government were

    1837
    prepared to go into it in a friendly and, at the same time, cautious spirit. He made no promise, and he gave no pledge, for promises and pledges led to misunderstandings; but when the proper time came for dealing with the question, his right hon. Friend would be prepared to go into the discussion of rent as a basis of valuation in a thoroughly impartial spirit, but aiming as much as possible at the attainment of what they all desired, a clear and fair system of valuation.
    MR. RAMSAYvery much regretted that his remarks had not been understood, or that he had failed to make his meaning clear. His Amendment was divided into two parts. The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) complained that he dealt with leases; but it was with leases of long duration that he proposed to deal, and that was necessary. He only proposed to legislate for leases of more than 21 years' duration, as the hon. Gentleman would see what he proposed was that—
    "Where such, lands and hereditaments are bona fide let for a yearly rent conditioned as the fair annual value thereof, without premium, tine, or consideration, other than the rent, such rent shall he deemed and taken to be the yearly rent or value of such lands and hereditaments in terms of this Act."
    If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Salt) had said he was prepared to accept the principle contained in these words, he (Mr. Ramsay) would not have pressed them; but he was now asked not to go to a Division. The Government, by placing the 108th clause at the end of the Bill, without fixing the principle upon which assessments were to be ascertained, had been guilty of a grave error, and he thought these principles should be first settled. The Committee could not proceed to legislate in utter ignorance of the principles upon which assessments were hereafter to be ascertained. If the hon. Gentleman would accept the principle contained in the words he had just quoted, he might see his way to withdraw his Amendment; but at present he would give neither promise nor pledge. If that were so, where was the value of the present discussion? They would have it all over again on Clause 108. If the Government would accept the principle of the Amendment, he would withdraw it; for it merely was intended to raise the broad question whether rent
    1838
    was to be the criterion of value, as a matter of fact, and not as a matter of opinion. Their assessment of rates should be upon matters of fact, and not upon matters of opinion, for opinion would, of course, vary, and must necessarily vary in different localities. ["Divide, divide!"] Hon. Members were impatient; but he thought he had reason for putting this matter at length, as he clearly had not made himself understood.
    MR. PAGETthought the whole object of the discussion would be lost if some understanding were not arrived at. They desired, in a somewhat irregular way, to get rid of a difficulty which had overshadowed the whole of this measure. It seemed to him, however, that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Ramsay) demanded too much. He admitted that he had a very great acquaintance with the measure; but the hon. Member insisted on having his own words, and nothing but his own words, and demanded that the Committee should swallow these or nothing. He understood, from the speech of the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, that he was favourable to the principle of accepting rent as a basis of valuation. It was true he did not pledge himself to the particular words of the Scotch Act, because, though they might be perfectly applicable to Scotland, they might not be altogether suitable to England; but he did accept, as a general principle, that rent was to be the basis of valuation. Other words might be found capable of expressing this more clearly to English minds; but the principle he had indicated was, he understood, thoroughly accepted by the Government, and, that being so, he thought they ought to get on with the Bill.
    COLONEL RUGGLES BRISEconsidered it most important that the Committee should know upon what principle this Bill was to be based as regarded valuation. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Salt) had said that it was as fair a basis as could be arranged; but he wanted to know whether the hon. Gentleman would agree that rent actually should be the basis? That was what they wanted to know, for they did not want to be left in the hands of Inspectors, Surveyors of Taxes, or other Government officers. There were many other ways of estimating the valuation, all more or

    1839
    less unfair; but this principle of taking rent as the basis was satisfactory. At present, where rent was low, the Surveyor of Taxes had the opportunity of putting up the assessment, and so of making himself very unpleasant all round. That was the point which they all wished to obviate. Where the rent was high, the Surveyor of Taxes would not lower the assessment, and could not, if he wished it, for the rest of the Assessment Committee would not let him; but where it was low, he had the power of dealing with it, and was sure, almost invariably, to put it high. A case of this kind had come under his (Colonel Brise's) own knowledge. A large farm of 450 acres was let at 25 s. an acre; while a neighbouring farm, of half the size, adjoining the estates of a gentleman who preserved highly, was let at £2 per acre. They were both of much the same class of land, so far as the land went. As soon as the Surveyor found out the difference in the rents, he raised the assessment of the larger farm. But the gentleman who took the smaller farm hired it principally for the shooting, and did not care for the farming so much. Yet, in consequence, his neighbour's assessment was raised 10 s. per acre. Two years after, the tenant of the 250 acres was bankrupt, and then the farm let for much less. Yet, during these years, the tenant of the larger farm had to pay assessment on 10 s. an acre more than his land was really worth. He had known cases of the greatest inconvenience and hardship resulting from this arbitrary system, and from the vexatious system pursued by the Surveyor of Taxes. That being so, the Committee could not be surprised that the whole country was alarmed at the idea that control was to be given in this matter to the Government officials. He hoped this matter would be settled, and that they would have some more definite answer from the Government before the discussion went any further.
    MR. SALTfeared that the answer he had given had not been quite clearly understood. He intended to convey that he would accept the principle of rent, subject to the reservations that, in the first place, there were many cases in which the principle of rent pure and simple did not apply; and, secondly, that he hoped they would have a full discussion, either on the Amendment of
    1840
    his hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), on Clause 108—
    "Where a hereditament is bona fide let for a yearly rent without fine or consideration other than the rent, such rent shall be taken as the aunual value,"
    or that at some other stage they should have the question pure and simple raised. In that way, the opinion of the Committee would be elicited. They would get as much information as they possibly could, and they would be able to arrive at a fair conclusion. But he would be doing very wrong if, upon an Amendment which he could not accept, he were to undertake to say, broadly and carelessly, that they heartily accepted the principle of rent as the basis of valuation. He would say, quite frankly and fairly, that if they could see their way, after full discussion, to accept the principle proposed, they would only be too glad, for the Government sympathized with the supporters of this principle, and wished to aid them. But it would not be fair for him to say he would accept any principle proposed to him without warning the Committee that it might happen, though he did not think it would, that when they came to discuss the question there might be very great difficulty in carrying it out.
    MR. PELLcould hardly think that the hon. Gentleman was taking the wisest course in speaking as he had done. He hoped that they would have had some statement from him more definite and distinct. He quite understood that the exact terms in which they would make rent the basis of value could not be now stated; but he did hope that they would have had some more favourable expressions from the Government with reference to acceptance of rent. The hon. Gentleman, in his first speech, said it would be the duty of the Government to look at this question very carefully. But that was their duty in any case. They could not say that sufficient time had not been given them to inquire into the circumstances. This Bill had been a long time before the House, and these Amendments proposed by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Ramsay), and by his hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), had been upon the Notice Paper of the House for a very considerable period of time. They were there last year;

    1841
    opinions had been expressed upon them; they had been discussed very freely in the public Press, and it was hardly fair to tell the Committee that the Government were now prepared to consider the matter carefully. Again, the hon. Gentleman had said the Government must deal with what they found to be the opinion of the Committee. Well, if he (Mr. Pell) did not mistake, the opinion of the Committee was distinctly in favour of the principle that rent should be the basis of value; and he, therefore, would ask the Government whether, if they would not accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Ramsay), they would accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), which was simpler in its terms, and met the requirements of the case in a better way? The earlier part of the present Amendment, however, did very well; but it was overloaded with the latter part. The hon. Member would have made out a better case, and his position would have been an easier and a better one, had he left that out. He would be sorry to see the debate drop at the point to which they had now come, and to find hon. Members retire from the position they had taken, upon the unsatisfactory and flavourless statement just made from the front Bench. He did not know what to do about the Amendment, because he could not entirely agree with it; but, at the same time, he was certain that they must have some more precise statement from the Ministerial Bench than they had yet heard. If the Government did not mean to make rent the basis of value let them say so at once, and then the Committee would know the exact position in which they were placed. No doubt, on the whole, the Bill was a good one; but it would certainly be improved by the introduction of this principle. He knew there were many cases where it would not apply; but in 99 cases out of 100 they could by no possibility get a more satisfactory valuation than the one now proposed. If that were so, he hoped the Government would not, thus early in the discussion, discourage the Committee by giving so undecided an opinion on the matter as that to which they had just listened.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not quite understand
    1842
    the feeling of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. Pell), or what he wished, or expected to be said, more than had been said by his hon. Friend (Mr. Salt). His hon. Friend had said that this was a question of great importance, upon which the precise wording of the clause required careful consideration. But as regarded the principle, the Government would accept, and would desire to give effect to the principle that the bonâ fide rent should be taken as the basis of value. How to divide bonâ fide rent from other considerations required, however, careful wording.
    SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONhoped that after what had been stated by the Government the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Ramsay) would not press the Amendment at present before the House. Many of the hon. Members who were in favour of the principle did not altogether accept the words of the Amendment, because, however well they might be suited to Scotland, they were not exactly what was wanted in England. The conditions of the two countries as regarded the letting of agricultural land were different; whereas in Scotland the land was let almost, as it were, by auction to the highest bidder, that was by no means the case in England. Speaking as the Chairman of an Assessment Committee, he could not support the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite.
    MR. RAMSAYwas very much surprised at the feeling hon. Members showed against the introduction of any part of the Scotch law into England. The principle he proposed had been found to be of very great utility in Scotland; and yet a great objection was taken to it because it was a Scotch law, hon. Members forgetting that the law was made by this House. There was no distinction between Scotland and England, and he did not see why what was good for Scotland should not be applied in this country also. But, with the view of testing the question and setting himself right with the Committee, he would propose to amend his Amendment by leaving out the greater part of it, and he would make it read as follows:—
    "And in estimating the yearly value of lands and hereditament under this Act, the same shall he taken to be the rent at which, one year with another, such lands and hereditaments might in their actual state be reasonably expected to

    1843
    let from year to year; and where such lands and hereditaments are bona fide let for a yearly rent conditioned as the fair annual value thereof, without premium, fine, or consideration other than the rent, such rent shall be deemed and taken to be the yearly rent or value of such lands and hereditaments in terms of this Act."
    If, however, his hon. Friends generally were of opinion that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer did promise the acceptance of the principle, without reference to the wording, he would not press his Amendment.
    MR. STANSFELDwas of opinion that his hon. Friend (Mr. Ramsay) would be entirely justified in withdrawing his Amendment after the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They had been discussing the question under considerable disadvantage, due to the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Sclater-Booth). No doubt, his hon. Friend (Mr. Salt) felt this difficulty, and so had many other Members of the Committee. But after the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the authority which he naturally possessed, he thought his hon. Friend might withdraw his Amendment, for he had been able to give with sufficient explicitness and clearness the assurances which they required. He noted with satisfaction that the Chancellor of the Exchequer told them that words would be introduced in the Bill in order to carry out this principle of making rent the basis of valuation. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Yes.] That statement implied that some change would be made in the Bill, as at present drafted, and that was as far as the Committee could expect the Government to go at present.
    MR. CLARE READsaid, he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that he would take the bonâ fide rent as the basis of assessment. That entirely embodied the principle of his Amendment, and he was quite satisfied with the explanation.
    MR. RAMSAYwas quite satisfied if the principle was conceded. He was in no way wedded to any precise words.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 7 (Form and contents of valuation list).
    MR. HICKSsaid, the clause at present stood thus—
    "The valuation list shall he in the form given in the 3rd Schedule to this Act, or in such other form as the Local Government Board, after communication with the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, from time to time direct."
    He proposed to leave out all the words after the word "Act." There was at the end of the Bill a table of the way in which the valuation list was to be made up, and he had no doubt that table had been prepared with the very greatest care by the right hon. Gentleman who brought in the Bill. Still, should the table require any amendment, it surely could be amended before this Bill became law. If it required any amendment when the Act was in operation, he was of opinion that the alteration should not be made without the approval and the consent of Parliament. Of late years, a practice had crept in of delegating to officers of Public Departments duties which properly belonged to the House, and he considered it a most objectionable proceeding. He, therefore, would move this Amendment, and he felt justified in doing so by the remarks which had fallen from many hon. Members during the discussion on the Amendment just withdrawn with regard to the interference of the Surveyor of Taxes.
    MR. SALTexplained that the words were inserted more as a matter of convenience than for anything else. It was not a matter of any great importance, except that it was felt undesirable to put Schedules into a Bill of this kind which could not be altered without an Act of Parliament. There was no intention of altering the Schedule in the Bill, and this provision was merely inserted as a safeguard, in order that slight alterations which might be subsequently found necessary could be made without going through the formality of passing an Act of Parliament. He believed that the Inland Revenue, under the present Act, had power to prescribe the form in which their Returns should be made, so that this proposition was in no way exceptional. There was no principle involved, and he hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment.
    MR. WHITWELLasked whether the Committee Would be able, when

    1845
    they reached the Schedule, to make changes in it, as, unless that were the case, the present clause would prejudge the question?
    MR. SALT, in reply, said, that the Committee would, of course, have that power.
    MR. GOLDNEYwas by no means inclined to admit that there was no principle involved in the Amendment. If they allowed the clause to pass, the overseers would be very likely to get into difficulty in making out their Returns; while, if the table were in the Bill, there could be no difficulty. It would not do to have objection taken to these lists on the ground that some new rule or order had been issued from the Central Office in London, which varied or changed the whole course of procedure. He did not see why the House was not perfectly competent to deal with so simple a thing as the form of claim in a rate-book; and he did not see, also, why the overseers should not find in the Act itself full and complete information as to what they ought and what they ought not to do.
    MR. HIBBERTcould not see any objection to allowing this power to the Local Government Board, although he thought the extension of the power to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue was very objectionable.
    MR. PEASEhoped the Amendment would have the support of the Committee, for he looked upon these words as another attempt to keep some matter under the control of these authorities in London, when they were perfectly capable of attending to it and dealing with it in the country. If the Schedule in the Bill were confirmed and approved by the Committee, it ought to be the one on which all Returns should be made. There could be no greater inconvenience than to allow the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or the Local Government Board authority to alter the Schedules on which these rates were to be made. All the House had to do was to see that the Schedule was properly drawn, and if then it did not work well, by far the best thing was to ask the House to amend it.
    MR. CLARE READsaid, the Committee would see from the Amendment what a centralizing measure this was. It not only fettered all the local authorities, but it also gave these two Depart-
    1846
    ments in London power, in any way they thought proper, to override and annoy them. He hoped that his hon. Friend would go to a Division, and that all hon. Members would do all that was in their power to take as much of the mischief out of the Bill as they possibly could.
    MR. ASSHETONhoped the Government would give way, as these words ought certainly to be left out. Nothing could be more anomalous than to say that these tables were to be made out according to the form given in the Act, unless the Local Government Board preferred some other form.
    MR. STANSFELDwished to remind the Committee that this was merely a Consolidation Clause, enacting the existing law. It was simply the clause that was to be found in the Act 32 & 33 Vict. c. 67.
    MR. RYLANDSentirely agreed with the Amendment, and hoped the Committee would hesitate before they gave this power to any central authority to interfere with the Schedule. Before the Bill left the Committee, a proper form of Schedule could certainly be settled. He, for one, looked with so much jealousy upon centralization in any form that he sincerely hoped the question would be pressed to a Division.
    MR. J. G. HUBBARDhoped, on the contrary, that the matter would not be pressed to a Division, for he desired, and expected, that the Government would give way. It was impossible for anybody who knew anything about the ways of Government Departments in this country to feel inclined to trust them implicitly with powers of this kind. The Schedule, at present, was a long way off, and there was plenty of time for the Government to alter and improve it. If, however, it would not work in the form in which it passed the House, it certainly ought to be brought to the House for amendment.
    MR. SALTdid not think it was worth while to spend any more time in discussing the matter. If the Committee wished to see these words removed from the clause, he would not object.
    Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 8 (Deposit and transmission of valuation list to assessment committee and surveyor of taxes).
    MR. PELLmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 12, after the word "duplicate," to insert the words "and any special valuation made by the assessor of railways and canals." He was quite aware that, by proposing to insert these words in the clause, he was raising the question of the principle upon which a very large amount of property in this country should be valued. He certainly, therefore, would not have ventured to place this Amendment upon the Paper, unless he had felt that there were good reasons to be urged in favour of it, and reasons to which effect had been given in another part of the Kingdom—namely, Scotland. What was the present position of the overseer of a parish in the country, when about to insert in his valuation list an estimate of the value of the railway line which passed through his parish? What could that poor man know about the matter, and what reasonable means had he of coming to a conclusion? What he usually did was to go to the overseer of the neighbouring parish and ask him how he was to make his estimate? The reply he usually got from his friend was that he really did not know; but that he had made a shot at it of so much, and he might perhaps try a little more, and see how the experiment answered. In some such way valuation lists in the country were made out in respect of railway property, and such a thing was neither creditable to the country nor in agreement with common sense and prudence. Now and then, when a parish or a Union, under the apprehension that they were suffering from grave injustice, called in experts or professional men, it had happened that an assessment had been raised 1,400 per cent, while 300, 400, or 500 per cent was not at all an uncommon or an unusual increase. In these cases, too, the companies had nearly all agreed to the assessments. Mr. Justice Field, when engaged in a case of this kind for a Union, said—
    "The parish officers have no means, before coming into this Court, of testing the accuracy of the figures on which the company rely."
    If that were so, the overseers certainly could have no means of ascertaining
    1848
    whether the valuation was correct. When railways were first constructed—and it was the case with canals also—the idea was that the companies would take a certain toll for the use of their road by the public; and if that had been the case, there would have been no difficulty in assessing the rateable value of any part of the line. But that was not the case. The railways were great carriers, and the idea of a person running his own engine along the line had never been practically carried out. But not only were the railways great carriers, but they were owners of steamboats and managers of hotels, and it was quite out of the power of persons who ordinarily filled the posts of overseers to form any opinion as to the amount of the valuation they should place in their lists. The Legislature were now endeavouring to help overseers and the public and clerks of counties to ascertain the rateable value of property. Up to the present the law had not done much. The 8 Vict. c. 20, which comprised, in one general Act, the scattered provisions of other Acts, enacted that each railway company should cause an annual account and abstract to be prepared, showing the detailed receipts and expenditure of the company for the year ending December 31. When that was prepared, the company was to transmit to each overseer a copy of the account. But how should an overseer, when he had these detailed accounts put into his hands, decide the amount for which that railway company was to be assessed for the mile or two of line which passed through his parish? It was perfectly monstrous that the law should remain in this state, and that no attempt had as yet been made, so far as he could ascertain, to put this matter upon a better footing. The only reason he could discover was, that the railway companies, who, undoubtedly, had enormous influence, were perfectly satisfied with the confusion and difficulty which at present existed. Even that was not all. The 32nd section of the Act said that the word "company" should mean the company which was authorized to construct the railway. But the practice of all the great railway companies was to absorb and buy up all the smaller and subsidiary lines that they could. They were not, in consequence, the companies which constructed the line; and where-ever a line had been bought or leased,

    1849
    the overseers did not even get the unsatisfactory statement of accounts provided by the Act, and all he got was the general report submitted to the shareholders by the directors at the annual meeting. This was a most unsatisfactory condition in which to leave matters, especially when they remembered that, in some counties, the assessment of the railways alone amounted to £250,000. The Committee would see what a material effect the unfair assessment of this property must have upon the other ratepayers. Of course, if they let off one class of property, the other classes must suffer unfairly. It was, as he contended, most unfair to leave a parish or a Union, desirous of fairly settling their assessment, to call in an expert, and to be forced to go to an enormous expense in order to find out at what amount a railway assessment should be settled. In Scotland a system was already in existence, which he proposed to introduce in a new clause later on in the Bill, and he was told the result of it was that it was as easy, if, indeed, it was not easier, to assess a railway for a whole county or Union as it was for a single parish, because the assessor or the valuer had to go into the whole accounts of all the railway, with all its branches, stations, and hotels, if he were valuing for a single parish, in just the same way, and just as precisely and accurately as if he were valuing the whole of the system. Surely it was far more in conformity with common sense that these valuations should be made by competent men for the whole county or Union, than that the assessment should be left to guess-work by the overseers as it was at present. He had new clauses to move at a later stage of the Bill, which would carry out the object he had in view; but he did hope that he should now receive some assurance from the Government that they would help him in getting what he was endeavouring to obtain. He was not wedded to the words he had proposed, and he merely wished to see the principle carried out, and the present very unfair and unsatisfactory system got rid of.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 12, after the word "duplicate" insert the words "and any special valuation made by the assessor of railways and canals."—(Mr. Pell.)
    MR. HIBBERTwished to express his entire concurrence in what had been said as to the desirability of placing the assessment of railways in a better and a different position. They all knew how difficult it was for these country overseers to make anything like a proper assessment. The proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Peel) was, as he understood it, that for the future both railways and canals should be valued by an assessor appointed by the county Justices; but that was a system which, in his opinion, could scarcely be adopted in every county. The plan would probably work well enough in the great majority of counties; but he was by no means sure that it would do so in counties such, for instance, as Lancashire and Yorkshire. The county Justices would, he thought, be scarcely competent to make an assessment of the vast extent of railway property in those two counties. It would, therefore, be necessary that they should be divided for the purpose of assessment; but there were certainly many counties in England in which railways and canals might be easily valued by the county authorities. What, in the circumstances, he would suggest to his hon. Friend was, if the Government could see their way to acceding to the proposal, that he should frame a clause which would make the county authority, with the sanction of the Assessment Committee for the county, the authority to value railway and canal property, and that in those cases in which no such authority existed the Committee itself should be the authority for the purpose of valuing railways and canals. That would, in his opinion, be a great improvement on the present system, which involved considerable expense, and frequently led to a great deal of confusion. His hon. Friend would give the power to the Justices of each county to appoint an assessor of railways and canals; but the county authority established under the Bill would, he thought, be the best to fix upon for the purpose. There was another point to which he wished also to call the attention of the Committee, and that was the mode in which the remuneration to be given to the assessor should be defrayed. It was proposed that it should be paid out of the county rates; but that would be scarcely right, because there were many parishes in

    1851
    which there were no railways, and it would manifestly be unfair that they should be asked to contribute to the salary of an officer from whose services they would derive no benefit. It would, however, be easy to meet that difficulty by means of a separate clause. In conclusion, he desired merely to observe that he entirely sympathized with his hon. Friend in the object which he had in view, and that he should be very glad to support his Amendment in the modified form which he had suggested.
    COLONEL MAKINSsaid, the capricious manner in which the rating of railways was conducted under the present system had been very accurately described by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), and there could be no doubt that some improvement in that system was much needed. What the Government ought, in his opinion, to do, in the first instance, would be to lay down a principle on which railway property should be assessed. The railway companies were most anxious that this course should be taken, for they were anything but satisfied with the existing state of things. The fact was that they were called upon to pay in many parishes, especially in the rural districts, very much more than their fair pro-portion of the rates. They also objected very strongly to being rated by persons whose interest it was to transfer the burden of payment from their own shoulders to those of the companies—which they, whether rightly or wrongly, imagined were in many cases better able to bear it. There was one other suggestion which he wished to make before he sat down, and he made it entirely on his own responsibility. The country had, in the Railway Commission, a public body which, although very distinguished, was certainly not very hard-worked; and to that Commission he thought the question of the rating of railways might very advantageously be delegated, for its composition was such as to render it probable that its decisions would be perfectly satisfactory to all parties. It was a mistake, he might add, to suppose that railway companies benefited by the confusion which now existed with regard to the rating of their property, and he, therefore, hoped some principle would be adopted on which the rating would be invariably made.
    MR. WALTERsaid, he had no connection with railways; but it appeared to him that there was no problem which was obviously less susceptible of solution than the question, how much of the net property of a line of railway was derived from each particular mile of country through which the line passed? What then, under the circumstances, he would suggest was that the Board of Trade, or some other Department of the Government, should furnish the various Unions throughout the country, every year, with its accounts of the rateable value of every railway in the Kingdom, and that upon that rateable value being so furnished, the proportion due to each parish should be divided per mile, and the net profits of a railway in that way distributed between the different parishes. To determine exactly the profits due to five or six miles of railway, and then the amount due to the next five or six miles, seemed to him to be impossible: and the plan he had indicated was therefore, he thought, worthy the consideration of the Government.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLregretted to find himself opposed to any proposal which was made by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Walter). He could not, however, help thinking that there could scarcely be a much less accurate way, or one which would operate more unfairly, of assessing railway property than that which the hon. Gentleman had suggested; for it was quite clear that a mile of railway in the parish of St. Pancras, for instance, was of far greater value than the same extent of the same railway in a parish in Bedfordshire. The problem with which the Committee had to deal was, he might add, far more complicated than the hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine, although it was not so extremely complicated as not to be tolerably satisfactorily solved at the present time. The real question for their consideration was how the assessment of railways and canals in a parish could be most easily arrived at. As matters now stood, the assessment rested with the overseer; but if he did not feel competent to the discharge of the duty, the Assessment Committee had the power—which was retained to them under the 47th clause of the Bill under discussion—to call in a scientific person to assist him in ascertaining the rateable value. It would,

    1853
    however, no doubt, be argued that that was a very expensive process; and, indeed, it was open to that objection, for the reason that when an expert was called in, the mode of paying him was by a percentage on the amount of rating which he established. That was an arrangement which was not only expensive, but which was bad in principle, and the point to be decided was in what way the services of a scientific person were most easily to be obtained to assist the overseer. All he could say was, that the railway companies would be delighted if his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Local Government Board could devise some satisfactory means by which such a person could be appointed, though whether it could be best done by the more limited appointments, by the Assessment Committees, or the more extended appointments by the Justices for the county, was not perfectly clear. What was really wanted was a person whose appointment would extend over a whole railway. The railway companies, at all events, would be very glad if some cheap and easy method of rating their property were established; for, under the present system, that property was, they believed, in many cases, very considerably over-assessed.
    MR. PEASEsaid, that the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) opened up a very knotty and a very complicated question. The assessment of railways involved not only the question of the amount of traffic and receipts, but also the question of the deductions to be made, which constituted, perhaps, the most difficult and important part of the whole subject. Under the circumstances, the best course to adopt, he thought, would be to postpone the Amendment for the present, in the hope that before the Report some means might be devised in the direction indicated by his hon. Friend, by which the present system of assessing railways would be simplified.
    MR. CLARE READsaid, that every hon. Member who had taken part in the discussion had admitted that the present system of assessing railways was unsatisfactory. In his own opinion, no system could be much worse. The work of assessment was now done by the overseer, who was, generally speaking, the least intelligent parochial
    1854
    officer. ["No, no!"] Well, in the rural districts, at all events, he was invariably the least intelligent of parish officers, being simply a rate collector. That being so, he could not for the life of him see how the Bill, as it stood, would get over the difficulty. To show how unsatisfactory was the present system, he might state that in his own Union a railway which had been assessed at only £350 had the assessment afterwards raised by a valuer to £1,300, on which sum the company were very well contented to pay rates.
    MR. SAMUDAsaid, that although great fault had been found with the suggestion which had been thrown out by the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter), there seemed to him to be considerable weight in it. At all events, no other suggestion had been made which, so far as he could see, would meet the difficulty with which the Committee had to deal. The most simple way, in his opinion, of arriving at the rateable value of railway property would be to compel the railway companies to lodge with the Board of Trade, or some other Public Department, a statement of the cost incurred in the construction of each mile of railway. By that means, the actual sum of money would be ascertained on which, in some form or other, the assessment could be made. Then, if the dividends paid by the railways were taken into account, a fair arrangement as to the total revenue of railways which ought to be rated would be arrived at, and the proportion properly chargeable to each mile.
    SIR BALDWYNLEIGHTONstrongly supported the Amendment, expressing it to be his belief that a great saving to the various Unions throughout the country would be the result of its adoption by the Committee, and that it might also be found to be an advantage in the end to the railway companies to have one assessment and one appeal for a line of railway running through a county instead of half-a-dozen or more.
    MR. SALTsaid, that the Amendment touched upon a very large and difficult question, in a clause which itself proposed to deal with only a very small corner of that question. As far as was able to gather from the tone of the discussion, the general feeling of the Committee appeared to be that the clause proposed by his hon. Friend

    1855
    (Mr. Pell) did not at all adequately meet the case of the assessment of railways, and in that view he was disposed to concur. He would, however, point out that by Clause 47 an Assessment Committee might, with the consent of the Guardians, appoint some competent person to assist them in the valuation of the rateable hereditaments of a Union, and that he should be paid out of the common fund, but that the payment should not in any way depend upon the amount of the valuation which he might make. It was now proposed that the Justices of the Peace for a county should appoint an assessor; but he saw some difficulty in the way of the adoption of such a proposal. What, in the circumstances, he would suggest was that the Amendment should be withdrawn for the present; and his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) would probably be able, in concert with his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, to frame a clause which might be inserted in the Report, and which would, as far as might be, meet the difficulties of the case.
    MR. PELLpreferred that the county authorities, rather than the Justices of the Peace, should discharge the duty of assessing the railway property. He would be quite willing to withdraw his Amendment on the distinct understanding that the Government were prepared to bring in a Bill to deal with that difficult subject.
    MR. FLOYERsaid, that the proposition to appoint an assessor of railways for whole counties was a large and serious one. Being rather jealous for the authority of the Assessment Committees, he was of opinion that if responsibility was imposed upon them, they should have the power of dealing with all questions that might come before them; and that they should not be overridden in the discharge of their duties. Was it to be understood that the Assessment Committee was to appoint an assessor of railways for the whole Union, or was he to be appointed at Quarter Sessions? Again, was it proposed that this county assessor or valuer was to go through the whole county, and revise the assessment of railways in all the principal Unions? He asked these questions with the hope that they might lead the Committee to arrive at a
    1856
    fair conclusion. The idea of taking power out of the hands of the Assessment Committee and placing it in the hands of the local board or magistrates was, to his mind, objectionable, inasmuch as it was an unfair interference with their proper right and province. Practically, until this question was settled, the Assessment Committee could not go into the valuation of railways or canals. These Committees were a competent class of men, having great experience in railways and their traffic; it was, therefore, for them to decide upon the adequacy or inadequacy of these valuations. He thought it a little hard, and a considerable innovation of principle, to say that those Unions, which had nothing on earth to do with railways, and had no benefits to get from the assessment of the railways, should have to pay the bill of the officer who was to assist in the valuation.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he could not help sympathizing with the hon. Member (Mr. Salt) in what appeared to be the indisposition of hon. Gentlemen on his own side of the House to facilitate the progress of the Bill. He (Mr. Rylands) considered it most objectionable to call into existence a number of officials through the country whose duties were likely to create considerable inconvenience. He wished to remind the Committee that the basis of the present Bill was the strengthening of the Assessment Committees; and that, in addition, it provided that there should be supervision by the county authority. He called the attention of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board to the fact that Assessment Committees were placed under great difficulty in consequence of the railway and canal companies refusing to give them the means of making a correct assessment of their property, and he had frequently known public companies to resist the Assessment Committee by keeping back information. In such cases, the Committee had been driven to assess the railway or the canal company in an amount which might have been considered unfair, in order to compel them to furnish a just valuation.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLpointed out that the provision of the Bill was not for the purpose of creating new officers, but for empowering the Assessment Committee to obtain all necessary information to enable them to put a proper rateable

    1857
    valuation upon railway property in parishes.
    MR. GREGORYthought a satisfactory railway valuation would not be possible under the present system of dealing with those undertakings piecemeal; they must be dealt with in their entirety. He approved the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for South Essex (Colonel Makins)—namely, that the Railway Commissioners should undertake the duties of assessment. If the railways were valued in this way, there remained, of course, the question as to the division of the rates between the parishes thro ugh which they ran. Upon that point, he suggested that the basis of population would be preferable to one of mileage.
    MR. PELLdesired to correct a misunderstanding which appeared to prevail with regard to his new clause, which, when it was reached, would be found to contain nothing which gave any power whatever to the officer in question, beyond that of a simple adviser. All he proposed was that some proper officer should advise the overseer as to the proper amount for assessment, and then retire.
    MR. STORERhoped the Government would not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) in its exact terms, because it was clear to him that the officer in question, whoever he might be, would in the end be an expense to the ratepayers.
    SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEbelieved that no one knew better than he how intricate and laborious a business was the assessment of railways; and he was quite certain that a proper solution of the question could be found, if it were clearly understood, that full justice would be done to both parties.
    MR. PELLasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Pill.
    Clause 9 (Notice to occupier where his liability is increased).
    MR. GORDONmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, lines 22 and 23, to insert the words "within fifteen days" in place of the words "as soon as practicable."
    MR. SALTsaid, the Amendment proposed was not open to any particular
    1858
    objection; but as the point was not of great importance he rather preferred the original words.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINasked the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Salt) whether the clause did not go a little further than the present practice? He was acquainted with an Assessment Committee, whose custom it was to send demand notes to the occupier, who had to find out for himself whether there had been any alteration in the increase of his liability, besides having to pay a fee. He thought the clause went a little further than was necessary.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, the hon. Member (Mr. Salt) would, in his opinion, do well to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Gordon). The words "as soon as practicable" certainly admitted of being very widely interpreted; still, as the parties whose assessment might be included in the new valuation list had a right to be informed thereof, he thought a period of 15 days was not too long.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTthought 15 days was too long. The period ought to be seven clays. If the notice was to be really of use, it ought to be given immediately. He would move to amend the Amendment, by substituting the word "seven" for "fifteen."
    MR. PEASEthought that seven days was too short, and that 10 days was much better.
    SIR BALDWYNLEIGHTONreplied, that the notices could be written pari passu with the making out of the valuation list, and they might be sent out without any delay.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to; words substituted accordingly.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINobjected to the words at the end of the clause, "and where the value is increased, the amount of the old and of the increased value." Would the Government object to leaving out those words?
    THE CHAIRMANasked the hon. Gentleman if he moved an Amendment?
    MR. CHAMBERLAINreplied, that in order to raise the question he would move their omission.
    SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONthought a form, given at the end of the Bill, would meet the views of the hon. Gentleman.
    MR. SALTwould prefer to keep the words in the clause, unless the Committee very much wished them to be omitted. It was desirable to give as much information as possible; and though, of course, the clause as it stood would give the Assessment Committee more trouble, yet the object of the Bill was to bring the whole arrangements and charges of the rates to the knowledge of those who were concerned.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 10 (Revision of valuation list by assessment committee).
    MR. PAGETmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 30, after the word "objections," to insert the words—
    "Such meeting shall he held in open Court, and the Assessment Committee shall have power to summon witnesses and to examine them on oath."
    His Amendment embodied a principle of considerable importance. The clause dealt with objections to valuations, but these objections were virtually appeals; and although the question of appeals came on later, he was obliged to raise this question at the present moment, because of the peculiar construction of the measure. Hon. Members would remember that when the Bill was before the House last year, it contained a clause providing for an appeal to Petty Sessions. In the course of debate in Committee, very strong objection was taken to making the Petty Sessions a Court of Appeal, and after very considerable debate, that Appeal Court was struck out of the Bill, and nothing whatever replaced it. At that time, he ventured to suggest to the Committee that by eliminating the one appeal open to the poor man, and substituting nothing for it, they had practically rendered appeals impossible in many cases. Nothing was, in fact, left to the poor man but to take his appeal to the Quarter Sessions, where the expense was so considerable as practically to put him out of Court altogether. It was necessary in any Appeal Court that it should be speedy, that it should be inexpensive, and that it should be heard in open Court, where witnesses could be examined on oath, and the appellant might have an opportunity of appearing either in person or
    1860
    by his legal adviser. But what was the appeal now given by the Bill? There was none, until they got to the Court of Quarter Sessions, which was not inexpensive, but, on the contrary, was very expensive, and was not speedy, for appellants often had to wait two or three months before their case was heard. He maintained, on the other hand, that there was an absolute necessity of setting some Court of Appeal before they got to the Court of Quarter Sessions. It was asked why there should not continue to be an appeal to Petty Sessions against a valuation list? But the fact was that at present no such appeal existed. The only appeal was against a rate and not against a valuation list. Besides, the question of appealing to the Petty Sessions was brought up last year, and the Committee was then so entirely opposed to the institution of a Petty Sessional appeal, that he thought it a vain thing again to attempt to bring that proposal before the Committee. What he proposed, then, was to elevate the dignity of the Assessment Committee itself, so as to make it a sort of Court of Review of its own primary decision. He did not see why that Committee should not have power to summon witnesses, to examine them on oath, to review openly, in fact, the decisions which were often come to in what he might call a hasty and perfunctory way. He knew it would be said that this was an extraordinary power to give to a hybrid committee, composed partly of Justices and elected ratepayers, and that it was introducing a new mode of procedure. No doubt that was so. But the fact that the proposal was new was not in itself an objection; and, for his part, he could see no reason why a body of experts, specially chosen for this work, and with a special aptitude for this business, should not be intrusted with the power of summoning witnesses and taking evidence on oath. He ventured to think, if this were done, and each objection were heard openly, with the power to the appellants to have legal advice if they chose, a great majority of the appeals would be at once got rid of. They would provide, in fact, a cheap, inexpensive, and ready remedy, which the poor man certainly did not possess at present.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONhad great pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

    1861
    It was not exactly in the terms which he would himself have chosen; but the principle on which it was based was so sound, and the alteration so necessary, that he felt bound in the interests of his constituents, who had communicated with him on the subject, to press its importance on the Committee. Nothing could be more absurd and unsatisfactory than the present mode of managing assessments. Assessments were made at the instance of a valuer or surveyor, and if a ratepayer objected, he was obliged to appeal, and in appealing to state the ground of his objection to the assessment. What, then, was the process? The Assessment Committee sat in a private room, closeted with their valuer. They heard in private all the valuer had to say in answer to the objection, the person objecting remaining outside and in ignorance of what was taking place within. He and the other appellants were then called in, one by one, and instead of being treated as persons who had a right to dispute their assessment, they were received and treated in the manner of culprits. They were cross-examined at the instance of the valuer, who, of course, wished to support his own assessment, and all the evidence that they had to give in support of their case was got out of them, in case they should decide to appeal to the Quarter Sessions. All this time the appellant knew nothing of the evidence of the valuer, because the sittings of the Committee were in secret. It really could not be called a fair hearing in which the appellant was treated as a hostile person, and cross-examined accordingly, with the Assessment Committee as judges and the valuer as prosecutor. Of course, it might be objected that the Assessment Committee was a mere administrative body, and ought not to be allowed to exorcise judicial functions. But if that were so, why was a power of appeal to them given? The fact that they were called upon to sit and hear, and possibly to reverse, their own assessment, implied a power of judgment upon it. But even if they were at present merely an administrative body, why should they not be turned into a judicial body for the purposes of the Bill? The Assessment Committee already was a judicial body to all intents and purposes; why should not the proceedings before them
    1862
    be conducted in a judicial manner and openly, instead of by these secret meetings with the indignity inflicted on any person who objected to the valuation of his property? He might be told that there was an appeal to Quarter Sessions. But why was a man to suffer the hardship of being driven there at great expense and loss of time? Why should not the first appeal be made a reality at once? In many cases, this first appeal would be quite sufficient, if all the proceedings were open and above board. A man, too, could afford to go to this Assessment Committee, while he would shrink from appealing to Quarter Sessions, with all the consequent expense of instructing a solicitor, of employing counsel, and of summoning witnesses. All that expense was quite unnecessary, and would be prevented by the acceptance of the Amendment. He would not, of course, abolish the second appeal; but he would remove the necessity for it in a large number of cases by making the machinery of the first appeal efficient. Under the system proposed by the Amendment, a man of business could state his own case quite well and easily, and the remedy would be both speedy and cheap. At present the appeal was a sham and an absurdity, and it was merely used to get out of the appellant as much of his case as possible before sending him to the Quarter Sessions. If the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board would accept the Amendment, he was sure he would receive very hearty and cordial support from both sides of the Committee.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLagreed completely with his hon. and learned Friend in the first part of his remarks, and only differed from him in his conclusions. He quite felt that this Court should be an open Court; for, in his opinion, nothing had so certainly led to many appeals as the fact that the proceedings were in secret. Of course, the valuer, not merely for the sake of his credit, but for the sake also of his percentage, would support the alterations he had made in the valuation. If, then, the appellant were out of the room, the valuer could easily earwig the Committee and put on one side all that had been urged on behalf of the appeal. But as to the formalities, he begged the Committee to remember that this second hearing

    1863
    was not an appeal, it was merely a revision of the valuation. If it were raised to an Appeal Court, it would certainly lead to the retaining of counsel, solicitors, and witnesses, and all the expenses of a regular Appeal Court. If it were, however, merely a revision the appellant could be heard in person, he would know everything that was said on the other side, and they would have a system which would be the very best for him.
    MR. ASSHETONsaid, his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Staveley Hill), in insisting on the necessity of having counsel and solicitors, was naturally looking at the matter from his own legal point of view. From his (Mr. Assheton's) experience as Chairman of an Assessment Committee, and from a considerable general knowledge of the subject also, he could see no necessity for any such thing. He did not admit that appellants were always treated as culprits; but still, if he had anything to do with an Assessment Committee, he would infinitely rather that the appeals were heard in open Court. In common fairness, each side should be openly heard.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid he had moved, in the previous Session, an Amendment to the clause making the Petty Sessions the Court of Appeal; and he certainly should support this proposition, because he thought it very necessary to give the Assessment Committee a firmer foundation. It was most necessary that the appeals should be heard openly; for, under the present system, many of the appellants went away with a firm conviction that they had not been properly treated. If, therefore, they were going to set up the Assessment Committee as a Court of Appeal, it was very necessary that it should be done in a manner satisfactory to the parishioners.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONsuggested the addition of two or three words to the Amendment, so as to give the Assessment Committee power to examine the valuer as well as the witnesses. He would, therefore, move the addition, after the word "oath," of the words "and the person making the valuation." The ratepayer, then, would be able to make the valuer state on oath the grounds of his valuation. The Committee would see at once that it would be very undesirable for the valuer to have power to make a statement not on oath.
    MR. PAGETasked whether the power given to the Committee to summon witnesses and to examine them on oath did not necessarily include power to call the valuer?
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONreplied, that it did not necessarily imply it.
    MR. SALTwas quite prepared to admit that his hon. Friend had raised a point which ought to be met, if possible, in some way. The question in his mind simply was, whether they were not creating greater difficulties than those they sought to remove? At present the Committee did not at all act in a judicial manner, and it was only a rough and ready means of arriving at the best conclusion. There were extreme difficulties in the way of creating this Committee into a Judicial Court, and at that moment and in the form in which the Amendment stood, it was quite impossible to insert it in the Bill. It was very difficult, indeed, to say what would be the exact result of giving these judicial powers. He was, however, quite prepared to say that the meeting, at which objections to the valuation were heard, should be an open one. Further he could not go at present; and if any more was to done, it must be done by a new clause, dealing with the whole subject, and not by two or three words added in this way. If his hon. Friend (Mr. Paget) would accept that, of course it would be quite open to him to bring up a new clause dealing with the subject at some future stage of the Bill, and he would promise that it should have his very best consideration.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, there was no doubt that the multiplication of appeals to Quarter Sessions was undesirable and expensive; and, besides that, such appeal was, so far as his experience went, very much like a sham. He thought that the mere fact of the appeals being considered openly would be beneficial to the interests of the ratepayers, inasmuch as at present the Assessment Committees were inclined to adhere too much to their own opinions, which left the appellant under the necessity of abiding by the disputed valuation. He believed the Amendment would accomplish the desired result.
    MR. PAGETpointed out that the clause of the Bill, not his Amendment, gave to the Assessment Committee the dignity of a Judicial Court. He

    1865
    wanted the Court to be an open Court, and he would have preferred that it should have been empowered to take evidence on oath. The matter, as he was aware, was one of considerable difficulty, and he was therefore unwilling to hinder the progress of the Bill in order to further his wish. For that reason, he was ready to amend his Amendment, by omitting all the words after Court, and letting it stand thus—"and such meetings shall be held in open Court." Of course, much more would be necessary, in order to constitute this Assessment Committee a Court of Appeal, than the insertion of the words which he proposed to introduce into the clause. But that was not his intention. He simply desired that the powers given to the Committee should be extended, and that it should be obligatory upon the Committee to determine, so far as it could determine, openly; and, if necessary, he would re-model his Amendment to effect this object. He begged leave to withdraw his Amendment, for the purpose of moving the insertion of the words "and such meetings shall be held openly."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONthought the Committee should agree to the insertion of the words "that the person appealing shall have the right to examine the valuer." It appeared to him perfectly idle to have any alteration of the hind proposed unless it was made complete. Why bring a person forward as appellant, without giving him the means of contesting the assessment? The appellant was to be told that he must submit to cross-examination at the instance of the valuer, who was to be present, and yet he was told that he had no right to question this person. He (Mr. Serjeant Simon) would move to add to the proposed Amendment the words "and that the person assessed shall have the right to examine the valuer."
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the hon. and learned Member was not in Order in making a Motion before the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid-Somerset (Mr. Paget) was disposed of.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEventured to doubt whether the word "openly" would accomplish the object
    1866
    of the hon. Member for Mid-Somerset (Mr. Paget).
    SIR ANDREW LUSKobjected to the Amendment. He believed that there was a general feeling against the private affairs of individuals being discussed in open Court, and was, therefore, of opinion that the clause should remain unaltered.
    MR. RYLANDSthought the hon. Member for Mid-Somerset (Mr. Paget), by his later Amendment, had proposed to add to the clause words which would produce mischief, and that by sacrificing the Amendment in its entirety he sacrificed, also, the object with which the original Amendment was introduced. If the Assessment Committee could be constituted a Court, with power to summon witnesses, examine them on oath, and determine upon the evidence given, no doubt, in many cases, decisions would be obtained against which no appeal would be made at Quarter Sessions.
    MR. PAGETsaid, he had consented to alter the original Amendment with the view of bringing it up again at a later stage of the Bill, and for the purpose of facilitating the progress of the measure. At the present stage, he was content with the words of the last Amendment.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he was glad to hear that the hon. Member had not given up the principle of his first Amendment; but he (Mr. Rylands) would remind him that by the course he was now taking he might carry an Amendment to the effect that the Assessment Committee should hear and decide the appeals in a Court open to the public, but that, when the subsequent stage of the Bill to which he had referred was reached, the proposal to give them power to summon witnesses and to examine them upon oath would be objected to by Government, and fall through. His view was that the questions between the parties whose property was assessed and the valuer—in fact, between the parties generally interested in the matter—should be, whenever practicable, arranged previously by mutual consent. This was done continually, and appeals were thereby avoided, because Assessment Committees had a certain amount of elasticity of action. He was ready to sacrifice that principle, if something equivalent were given to him in return; but he refused to accept the mutilated Amendment of

    1867
    the hon. Member which, in its present form, would do no good whatever. His advice was that the Amendment should be entirely withdrawn, and left for future consideration, and that a clause should be proposed for dealing with the question as a whole.
    Amendment agreed, to; words inserted accordingly.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    House resumed.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.
    It being now Seven of the clock, the House suspended its Sitting.
    The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

MOTIONS.
  BREACH OF PROMISE.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. HERSCHELL, in rising to move—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, the action of Breach of Promise of Marriage ought to be abolished except in cases where actual pecuniary loss has been incurred by reason of the promise, the damages being limited to such pecuniary loss,"
    said, he could assure the House that it was in no spirit of levity that he introduced the Motion to their notice, and he feared that any who had come expecting amusement would go empty away. During some years the conviction had been forced upon him that the action for breach of promise was evil in its tendency, mischievous in its result, and the time had come when it might be advantageously considered by the House. The question to some might seem of trivial import, and hardly worthy of the dignity of discussion in the House of Commons; but he believed that it really struck its roots deeper into the social system, and touched the life of society at more points, than might at first sight appear. Whatever difference of opinion there might be with regard to the Motion, there could be but one opinion on this point—that the action was every day scandalously abused. Hon. Mem-
    1868
    bers who did not confine their attention exclusively to politics could scarcely read their newspapers without seeing abundant proof of what he had stated. Many of these actions were brought merely for the purpose of extortion, and the levying of black mail; and his professional experience had led him to the conclusion that it was time they were abolished. Instances of the kind had happened within a year or two which might be mentioned; but he would not detain the House longer than to give two instances by way of illustration. A case occurred, a year or two ago, of an action brought against a clergyman of the age of 65 by a young woman of 35. She alleged that they had been engaged to be married since 1864; but the marriage had been postponed on account of the objection of some relatives in whose house he lived. She produced a witness who gave some kind of corroboration to her story. On the part of the defendant the engagement was utterly denied; but according to the account which he (Mr. Herschell) had received from one of the counsel engaged, the defendant was afflicted with an impediment in his speech and an irrepressible habit of yawning, and he had this further peculiarity, that he had a great love for medicine. According to a curious calculation that was made, he had taken 67,000 pills in a few previous years. The result was that these things unfavourably impressed the jury, and they gave a verdict for the plaintiff, with £150 damages. At the next sitting of the Court, when a new trial was applied for, affidavits were made as to the plaintiff's antecedents, and satisfactory evidence was given that she was an abandoned woman who had been convicted of theft, and that during the time of her alleged engagement to the clergyman she had threatened two other persons with actions, and had succeeded in getting from one £80 in order to settle the matter and keep it out of Court. No sort of answer was ever given to either of the charges exhibited in the affidavits. The case had never again been heard of, and it was a clear instance of extortion. The second case to which he would refer was an action brought against one of the other sex, and it was well he should give it, because it might be said by some that the Motion he had submitted was entirely in the interests of men. In

    1869
    this case, the man proceeded against the woman. He had behaved scandalously towards her, and shown clearly that he cared nothing whatever for her, his motive being sheer avarice, and if the whole circumstances had been laid before a jury, they would have given him a farthing damages. But the lady had the greatest possible aversion to having her letters published in the newspapers, and the consequence was that she paid the scoundrel £1,000 and his costs rather than submit to having the correspondence laid before the Court. That was a case in which the action was brought simply for the purpose of extortion, and it was undoubtedly a gross abuse of the law. Every day actions were brought where no promise had been made, and every day actions were brought to redress no real wrong or injury. But even in cases where some sort of promise had been given, it was impossible for a man to obtain justice, for it was always difficult to get the facts fairly weighed by a jury. If he attempted, in the course of the case, to suggest that the woman was anything but an angel in temper—a very embodiment of all the female virtues—so that there would be some reason to justify a man in not marrying her, the mere suggestion was enough to bring down upon him a whole torrent of invective from Judge, counsel, and jury, and comments of such a nature were made that the unfortunate man came out of Court in the most uncomfortable position, although, if the merits of the case had been fairly investigated, it would have been seen in many cases that the man had not been one whit to blame. That being the case, when they found that actions of that kind were scandalously abused, it was time that the action should justify itself, that they might see on what foundation it rested—whether there was any sound basis on which it could be supported. The action for breach of promise of marriage was not so ancient as some persons might be disposed to imagine. This country flourished for many centuries in a perfectly satisfactory condition without any person thinking of bringing an action of this description. About two centuries ago it was established that such an action lay, so that there was no flavour of venerable antiquity surrounding it. It was true, however, that as far back as the reign of
    1870
    Queen Elizabeth an action somewhat of this description was brought by a man, who alleged that the woman had given him flattering words equal to a promise of marriage; that, therefore, he delivered to her money and other things; and that afterwards the woman married another man in deceit and fraud of the plaintiff. But the first action founded on the allegation of a promise of marriage was brought in the reign of Charles I.; and from the time of Charles I. it was established that for breach of this contract an action lay. For a considerable time it was thought that the promise must be in writing; but subsequently a different view prevailed on this point. In cases of this kind the law departed altogether from the ordinary rules in assessing damages for breach of contract. Wounded feelings were taken into account, while no regard was paid to other circumstances of the case. Could it be maintained for a moment that a union without affection was a desirable thing? A promise of marriage was held to be a contract, and could only be avoided like any other contract—like one to buy a bale of wool, for instance. It was alleged on the part of the woman who brought the action that had the promise not been broken the woman would have had a home, a husband, and a maintenance, though the question of what sort of home and husband she would have had was never considered. They regarded the woman as having suffered as great a loss as if she had lost the most affectionate and desirable of husbands; and it was no answer to an action of this kind that the person had just come from a lunatic asylum, where he or she had passed the best part of a life-time. When the question of damages, however, was approached, then, as a rule, the way of dealing with ordinary contracts was departed from, the damages generally given being in inverse ratio to the merits of the case. For instance, a pretty and engaging woman, who, there was little doubt, would soon get another engagement, and whose loss, consequently, would comparatively be very little, would get heavy damages, especially if the defendant was a greedy, avaricious, mean-spirited fellow, who would have made her a very bad husband. On the other hand, in the case of a plain, unattractive woman, not likely

    1871
    to obtain another engagement, whom the man had treated with consideration and honour, and who would have made her a very good husband, her damages would be but small, although her loss was far greater than in the other case. It was said that this was a contract, and must be enforced by law; but with such a contract, and one party hostile to carrying it out, he contended that if before the bond became indissoluble either of the parties desired to be free, it was better for both of them, and better for society, that they should be free, not only for their own sakes, but also for the sakes of the children who would possibly follow from it. How could they be properly brought up if there were not only a want of harmony, but actual hostility between the parents? He denied that there was any real similarity between the contract between persons who engaged to marry and any other kind of contract, inasmuch as the former alone bound the parties to an indissoluble union; and would point out, as an anomaly, that a contract by which a man undertook to pay £5 in consideration of marriage could only be sustained if in writing, while a contract by which he engaged to pay not money, but himself, could be sustained by mere verbal declarations, often of the very slightest character. Though he had brought this subject before the House in two Sessions, only one Petition had been presented against the proposal, and that Petition only obtained nine signatures. The petitioners declared that marriage was a profession in which women earned their livelihood by the discharge of the social, conjugal, and domestic duties which appertained to matrimony; that the entrance into that profession came through an offer of marriage; and that the breach of such a promise hindered a woman from obtaining her proper station in life, inasmuch as a woman who gave her affections to one man could not transfer them to another without grievous loss. The view of the petitioners seemed to be that marriage was the result of a kind of competitive examination for the appointment of wife; that the obtaining of a promise was to be regarded as passing the examination; and that it was a great shame if a woman, after passing the examination, failed to get the appointment. He maintained that such a suggestion
    1872
    was an insult to women, for it was not true that a woman earned her livelihood by performing her conjugal, social, and domestic duties. Earned her livelihood! He did not like the phrase, as it was impossible to admire too much the devotion, the zeal, and the unselfishness with which women performed their social and domestic duties, and endeavoured to promote the happiness of the men to whom they were united. They performed them with a zeal and an unselfishness which indifference was scarcely able to chill, and which brutality could not always extinguish. Therefore, he protested against the view that women performed those duties by way of return for board and maintenance as being as degrading as it was untrue. The alteration of the law which he proposed was not to abolish the action in every case. If, on the faith of the promise that had been made, a woman had incurred expense or loss, it was right that it should be recouped. There were cases in which a servant or a governess might have given up a situation, or a person a shop, at the request of the man to whom she was engaged, thus incurring undoubted pecuniary loss in consequence of the promise, and it would be unjust that she should not be indemnified. An action on that account was not open to the objections which applied to the law as it stood. Therefore, while abolishing the ordinary action for breach of promise, he would reserve the right to claim compensation for money loss incurred in consequence of the contract. He was glad that the proposal he was about to make would bring the law of England into harmony with the law of other European States. The French law was, with one exception—that of seduction in consequence of a promise of marriage—substantially what he proposed. Damages could only be recovered on account of what was called a préjudice réel. In the Italian Code, it was expressly laid down that the mutual promise involved no obligation to contract the marriage; and that, when the promise was in writing, the party who refused to carry out the promise was bound only to re-imburse the expenses of the other. According to the Austrian law, the party breaking the promise was not liable to the other for anything beyond the actual damage sustained. The Dutch law was substantially the same. The American law was the

    1873
    same as our own, and was borrowed from ours; but if the House agreed to this Motion, it would give a stimulus to the reform of the law in the United States. In Germany, where the engagement was of a more formal nature than in this country, being an official act before public authorities, one-fifth of the dower might be claimed, if one of the parties refused without just cause. Possibly there were some few cases of breach of promise which were cases of hardship, in which it was most desirable that an action should lie. He believed, however, that such cases were very few, and that it was impossible to legislate for them. Therefore, the question must be dealt with as a whole. On the other hand, the law was abused in very many cases; and in so many that, in his opinion, it was better that the action should be abolished. If the law, as a whole, was put on a satisfactory basis, they must submit to individual cases of hardship. It was said that it would be very hard, after an engagement extending over several years, that a man should break it off and leave the woman with less chance of obtaining a partner in life. It was said, therefore, that there should be compensation in such cases. But he could not help thinking that a great many of those lingering engagements were the result of the present state of the law, of the moral cowardice on the part of the man, who felt that his affection had grown cool, and who, rather than break off and risk an action, went on year after year continuing an engagement with a woman whom he knew he never could marry. But was it desirable by force of law to drive people into a union when one was unwilling? What would be thought of the woman who would insist upon the performance of the engagement when she knew that the man would do anything in the world rather than marry her? To make a man continue to love a woman the law was powerless. With regard to another class of cases. In the law of France, as he had said, an exception was made where seduction was the immediate consequence of the promise of marriage. It seemed to him that it would be impossible to make such an exception. It would be impossible to afford relief of that kind to a woman whose virtue had failed, when it was denied to a woman whose virtue had been more robust and unshaken. He
    1874
    admitted, however, that the present law of seduction was highly unsatisfactory: it was barbarous and ridiculous, and urgently required alteration. It might be said that if that change were made, they would have many more instances of seduction under promise of marriage. He ventured to doubt that very much. He believed that, in the main, when men made promises of marriage they intended to keep them; but if any man were wicked enough purposely to make a promise of marriage, intending never to keep it, but to effect the ruin of a girl, he could easily enough now so manage his conduct as not to render himself liable to any action at all. And it was worthy of consideration whether the change might not operate in the opposite direction; and whether, if women knew that man's promises were not certain of fulfilment, they might not be more careful and more robust in regard to their virtue. About a century ago, one of the greatest Judges who ever graced the English Bench, Lord Mansfield, expressed strong objections to that kind of action, and characterized it as one which, on account of its consequences, ought to be viewed with the greatest jealousy. Lord Mansfield further said that both sides ought to continue free, otherwise such contracts might be greatly abused by putting woman's virtue in danger by too much confidence in men. That remark was equally applicable at the present day. Again, he might be met by what he would call the "big-brother argument." He might be told that if the change suggested were made in the law, the indignant brothers of fair ladies would take the cause of their injured sisters into their own hands, and chastise the men who had broken their promises of marriage. Now, he did not believe in these valiant brothers; and it was simply ridiculous to suppose brothers burning to avenge their sisters' wrongs, and yet keeping back their indignant arm in the consciousness that an action would lie for breach of promise of marriage. Did the lady's brother really say—"Be still, indignant heart! Restrain your violent arm. Are there not the Law Courts to appeal to?" Again, it was often forgotten that that was after all a class action, and that amongst what were called the upper classes and amongst the artizan class it was alike unknown, and the evils which

    1875
    it was predicted would arise from its removal were not found to exist in those classes. It was also objected that the change he suggested would tend to diminish the sense of the binding nature of the promise of marriage; but if they passed that law to-morrow, he believed it would still be thought discreditable to engage a woman's affections lightly and to cast them off lightly, although the idea might be disposed of that wounded feelings could be assuaged with money bags and broken hearts mended with gold and silver. With regard to the Amendment by which his Motion was about to be met, he quite agreed with the allegation it contained, that the injury sustained by a breach of promise of marriage could not be weighed, by the standard of pecuniary loss alone. He went further, and contended that it could not be measured by a pecuniary standard at all, and that was why he proposed his Motion. He had been met by professional men—to whom he ought, perhaps, to apologize for taking the step he had, seeing that whoever else might be gainers from the abolition of the action, they certainly would not—with the remark that it was too bad to take away that class of cases from them, especially at a time of so much depression of trade; but he was sure they would feel that the interests of the Profession must give way to the interests of the public. The more the reform was considered, the more he believed would it commend itself to the calm sense and judgment of the people. If passed, it would elevate men's views about the marriage bond; it would cheek much that was evil; and his firm conviction was that it would add to the well-being and happiness of the community. The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, in the opinion of this House, the action of Breach of Promise of Marriage ought to be abolished except in cases where actual pecuniary loss has been incurred by reason of the promise, the damages being limited to such pecuniary loss."—(Mr. Herschell.)
    SIR EARDLEY WILMOT, in rising to move the following Amendment:—
    "That the injury sustained by Breach of Promise of Marriage cannot be weighed by the standard of pecuniary loss alone, and that the limitation of the action in the manner proposed by the Resolution would be very undesirable."
    1876
    said, the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Herschell) had devoted his argument entirely to advocating the complete abolition of action for breach of promise; but his Motion was expressly in favour of limiting it to cases where actual pecuniary loss had been incurred. As a matter of fact, however, it was impossible for any jury to assess in a satisfactory way what actual pecuniary loss had been incurred by a lady. There were many cases in which women suffered serious injury, in which it could not be shown that they had sustained any pecuniary loss. Young ladies in the higher class of life, who had no independent fortunes of their own, lived with their parents; but they were liable to great disadvantages during the period of their engagement. A young lady under those circumstances was a wallflower—she could not waltz, she was kept very much to herself, and if the engagement was broken off without her assent, her only loss, putting aside her wounded feelings and slighted affections, was the chances she might have missed owing to the fact that her engagement was known in the society in which she moved. In the middle and lower ranks of society, also, he failed to see how young women sustained pecuniary loss by the breaking of engagements to marry, because, as a rule, they either continued to live with their parents, who maintained them, or did not cease from following employments in which, up to the time of their engagements to marry, they had been engaged. Looking at the question broadly, he would ask whether the action of breach of promise of marriage, which had lasted for 200 years, had proved mischievous or beneficial? On the whole, he thought that experience proved it to have been beneficial, although, like all other processes known to the law, it was capable of abuse; and it was beneficial mainly because it acted as a deterrent upon the minds of many men, for such were frequently to be found, who would otherwise, from mere wantonness, trifle with the affections of women. Women were much weaker than men, and, in nearly all these cases, the man was the injuring party. His hon. and learned Friend ridiculed the idea of women being pecuniarily injured by a breach of promise; but he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) maintained that marriage and a settlement in life were the one object of a

    1877
    woman's life, whereas men had numerous engagements to occupy their time and attention, and to divert chagrin and disappointment. Lord Byron, whose knowledge of women could not be gainsaid, told them in that memorable stanza, the whole of which he cited—
    "Man's love is of man's life a thing apart,
    "Tis woman's sole existence."
    His hon. and learned Friend, however, would simply tell them to take care of themselves, and, like Balthazar, in Much Ado About Nothing, said to them—
    "Sigh no more, ladies, sigh no more,
    Men were deceivers ever,
    One foot in sea and one on shore,
    To one thing constant never."
    This was very much more of a woman's than a man's question; and he could not help, in passing, alluding to the loss they had sustained in the death of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), whose presence would have shed lustre on the present dabate, while his powerful and eloquent reasoning would have greatly aided them in coming to a correct and just conclusion. He had had the honour of an acquaintance with that Gentleman for more than 20 years, and he hoped he would have been spared to assist, not only that night, but in the debate on the Criminal Code Bill on the previous evening. Having known him for many years, he believed that, as a lawyer, he was second to no man in that House. He could unravel an intricate legal argument referring to numberless cases without the employment of a single note. He (Sir Eardley Wilmot) well remembered the masterly speech he made, two years ago, in the debate on women's disabilities. He never heard a more eloquent or more logical speech; and in that speech occurred the words—
    "By the arrangements of God, man was intended for the busy walks of life, woman for the sanctuary of home and for those offices far higher than man could perform in the busy scones of life, and which make home and life holy. That is her place."—[3 Hansard, ccxxxiv. 1413.]
    Those words, he thought, were very apropos to the present debate, for it was marriage which gave to woman that sanctuary and holiness of home so truthfully described by the late Member for Limerick. He was sure that the House would join with him in expressing sorrow for the loss which Parliament had sus-
    1878
    tained by the death of the hon. and learned Member. He hoped the House would not adopt the Resolution of his hon. and learned Friend opposite, which, practically, would abolish actions for breach of promise altogether; but that the fair sex, who were not there to advocate their own rights and speak in behalf of themselves, would find many hon. Members to fight their battle and retain an action which was valuable, chiefly as a safeguard for women, even if it were not resorted to in a Court of Law. In conclusion, he would move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
    MR. MORGAN LLOYD, in seconding the Amendment, said, it was worthy of observation that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Herschell) had abandoned his original proposal, which was that no action for a breach of promise should be brought at all. That was the scheme last year; but now it was proposed to place that action on the same footing with actions for breaches of mercantile contracts generally. If the original proposal had been carried out, breaches of promise of marriage would have formed the only exception to the general rule that whenever a contract was broken the party aggrieved had a right of action. It was the law of the land that in cases where contracts were broken the aggrieved party had a right of action at law for damages; and he did not see why that rule should be departed from when the contract broken was a contract to marry. The proposal now was not to abolish the action, but to limit the right to recover damages to the pecuniary loss. He (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) should like to know why that should be? No reasons had been adduced in favour of such a proposition. The direct pecuniary loss was generally trifling as compared with the direct damage. A long engagement with one man might deprive a woman of other eligible offers, and affect her whole life. It sometimes happened, no doubt, that one party refused to release the other from his engagement even after it had become evident that a marriage would only lead to unhappiness; but there were also many cases in which a man wished to sacrifice the feelings not only of the lady to whom he was engaged, but his own affection for her, so as to marry another woman for money. In

    1879
    such instances, it would not be just to allow the man to throw off the woman, after spoiling her chance of marriage, without compensation. Then, the argument that high-minded women would not resort to the law in cases of breach of promise had no value whatever, as the same might be said of all rights of action. The Courts were open to all, and it was at the option of parties to have recourse to them. Besides, Parliament did not legislate for high-minded or low-minded people. It legislated on the justice of the case. The question was not, what would be the result of the passing of a Bill founded on the Resolution upon individuals, so much as what it would be upon the public generally. The present law, though it allowed, also had the effect of preventing, actions for breach of promise of marriage being brought, by preventing breaches of the contract. No one who broke such a promise could say now he was free from the expenses and exposure of an action, and breaches of promise were thereby prevented. It was said that it was impolitic to force men to marry against their will, but nobody was bound to marry unless he liked. If he had promised, and did not perform his promise, he was bound to make compensation for his breach of contract.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the injury sustained by Breach of Promise of Marriage cannot be weighed by the standard of pecuniary loss alone, and that the limitation of the action in the manner proposed by the Resolution would be very undesirable,"—(Sir Eardley Wilmot,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. FORSYTHsaid, that although he was opposed to the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell), he was ready to support him in any attempt he might make to amend the existing law by making proof of the promise to marry more stringent than it was at present. He was ready to admit that juries were sometimes called upon to infer a promise from circumstances which did not warrant it—as in the famous case of "Bardell v. Pickwick," so satirically described
    1880
    by our great novelist Dickens. But he (Mr. Forsyth) did not see why wounded feelings, as well as pecuniary damage, should not be taken into account. This was so in the case of actions for seduction, where the smallest loss of service to the plaintiff gave a right of action; and the jury, being over-seized with the case, might award such damages as they thought fit. Very often an action for breach of promise of marriage might be necessary to vindicate a woman's character, which might be whispered away in the cruel gossip of society after an engagement had been broken off. This was peculiarly a woman's action, and there could be no doubt that, in many cases, much injury was inflicted upon the woman by a breach of promise to marry, which it was impossible to compensate by money. Some persons, and amongst them a learned Judge now on the Bench, held, indeed, the opinion that the greater the scoundrel the defendant was, the less the woman who brought the action ought to recover damages, because she was fortunate in having escaped the marriage. In other actions, such as those for libel and slander, compensation was given for wounded feelings and loss of position in society; and he did not see why, in the case of actions for breach of promise, a scoundrel should not, after paying his addresses to a woman, and deserting her to marry a richer woman, be made to pay damages, as compensation for a bruised or broken heart, as well as any actual pecuniary loss she might have sustained.
    MR. RODWELLthought that the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell) was to be thanked for having brought his Resolution before the House. The question must be determined on social, rather than on legal grounds. While supporting the Resolution, he regretted that his hon. and learned Friend had not concurred with him in bringing in a Bill upon the subject, instead of a mere abstract Resolution. The contract with which the Resolution dealt was not analogous to other contracts. The first foundation of an engagement of this kind was in "reciprocity." There should be a mutual return of affection; and his argument was that the moment that affection ceased on one side or on the other, it was for the good of both parties that

    1881
    the engagement should cease, and that there should be an end to a state of things which, instead of leading to comfort, would lead to discomfort, and to misery instead of happiness. These actions were sometimes brought for extortion, and sometimes to satisfy feelings of revenge; and he would like to know what sort of a wife the woman would make who would drag a man to the altar, with a suit for breach of promise in her hand, knowing that his affections were estranged? He had no sympathy with such a woman. Actions for breach of promise were not, in his opinion, productive of very much good; and the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. Forsyth), in referring to the case of "Bardell v. Pickwick," seemed to forget the class of lawyer in whose hands Mrs. Bardell's case was placed. Half these actions were brought for reasons of extortion, and he (Mr. Rodwell) thought they ought not to be encouraged. He concurred in every syllable that had been littered by the hon. and learned Member for Durham; and although Byron and Dickens, and some of the minor poets, had been quoted, he had not heard one argument to satisfy him that these actions should be maintained.
    MR. COLEsaid, he could not agree with the opinion expressed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell) that these actions were, as a rule, brought solely for the purpose of extortion, or from improper motives. In discussing the question in that House, they must bear in mind that they were addressing a tribunal exclusively composed of men, who were all more or less interested in abolishing these actions. If his hon. and learned Friend had remained a bachelor, he believed he would never have dared to bring forward the Motion. It was said that only one Petition had been presented against the Motion; but the more important question was, how many were there in its favour?—and he should be surprised to hear of many. Only two cases of an exceptional character had been mentioned in support of the Motion. His hon. and learned Friend shrank from abolishing the action altogether; but said that it might be brought, if pecuniary damage had been sustained. What a mean proposition! No matter how much the girl's feelings
    1882
    had been wounded and trifled with, no matter how much her parents and friends had been annoyed—all was to go for nothing, unless she had lost a £5 note or a situation. It was surprising that such a proposition should be made in a House of Gentlemen. The dreadful case was put of a man who had been courting a girl for a long time, and then said he had lost all affection for her; and it was argued that no woman ought to seek to marry such a man. Of course, a girl of proper feeling would say she would have nothing to do with such a man; but still her parents, in certain cases, would not allow her feelings to be outraged in that way. The "big brother" had been alluded to—pity there was not more wholesome dread of the "big brother," who was restrained by law from inflicting chastisement, and duels were practically abolished. The only remedy left was to bring an action, in order to expose the conduct of the man, and vindicate the character of the woman. How often were counsel ashamed to say they did not care for damages, and that the main object of the action was to vindicate the character of the lady? In such cases, the action was very properly brought. Again, the deterrent effect of these actions had been lost sight of. But for the fear of them, how many promises would be rashly and inconsiderately given with the knowledge that they could not be enforced? how many times would they be given with a most improper design? It was known to many hon. and learned Members that in most of the cases of seduction that came before the Courts the injury had been done under a promise of marriage. Make such a promise of no value, and men would not hesitate to give it. No jury would ever find that a promise had been given, unless there were ample proof of such promise; the woman must be confirmed by independent testimony. The House ought to pause long before it abolished the action, which his own experience did not lead him to view with disfavour. It was an action little used amongst the upper classes, but in the middle and lower middle class it was most valuable. As regarded his own sex, he had known cases in which actions had been very properly brought by men. He was, some years ago, engaged with Sir Montague Smith in a case tried at Bristol, in which a man

    1883
    obtained £300 damages. The action was brought to clear a gentleman's character from a shameful charge that had been brought against him by the lady. He saw no reason why a man's character as well as a woman's should not be cleared in that way. For these reasons, and on the ground that no sufficient reasons had been given for abolishing the action, which, it was admitted, had existed for more than 200 years, he should oppose the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Durham.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he would say a few words upon this simply as a legal question. A contract was entered into between two parties, and the breach of that contract was fraught with serious injury to one party, if the other broke it heartlessly. He would give the most recent among many instances in his own professional experience. A father came to him and told him that a young man who was engaged to his daughter wrote coolly to her one day, and without any other reason, told her that he was going to marry another girl, because she was richer. He asked what he should do, and when he was advised not to enter an action, he said—"I must either punish the scoundrel by bringing an action against him, or I must break his neck." Well, the action was commenced, a sum of money was paid and an apology made by the man who had acted in such a heartless manner. He would say no more beyond giving that case, except to affirm that if the present action was taken away, some other remedy must be found—some means of punishing the scoundrel who had broken his promise in a heartless way, and of compensating the female who had been injured in her feelings and prospects in life.
    MR. GRANTHAMdid not think that the arguments advanced justified any alteration in the law. He looked upon it as almost entirely a pecuniary question, because the girl often sustained a pecuniary injury, when no money had been actually expended by her. There were, no doubt, hard cases to be found, and cases where great imposition had been practised, as against the man; but hard cases made bad law, and, looking at the law as a whole, he thought it had worked well for the public. If a girl was engaged for five or six years, and
    1884
    then thrown over, she had lost almost three chances out of four of marrying, and that, probably, would be a great pecuniary loss to her, and if pecuniary damage was sustained the party was entitled to be compensated. It was chiefly because of the pecuniary injury that this law should remain, as it was for the public good, even although it might occasionally be used for purposes of extortion.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)contended that the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell) was a complete inversion of our jurisprudence; a breach of any contract, according to our ordinary rules of law, gave a right of action. He (the Solicitor General) denied that the action for breach of promise was the peculiarity it was alleged to be; the peculiarity lay in what his hon. and learned Friend proposed. He would like to know why such an inversion of the ordinary principles of jurisprudence was to be proposed, simply because the parties were man and woman? Suppose he combined to enter into partnership, the defaulting party would have to pay damages to the other adequate to the loss of partnership; and, besides the actual loss sustained, there might be a hurt to the feelings which could not be atoned for by any pecuniary compensation. Was right to be denied for a real and actual injury, because there was also another injury for which no compensation could be given? Pre-contract of marriage down to 1752 enabled the woman to go into Court and compel the man to marry her. But upon the abolition of that system by Lord Hardwicke's Act in 1753, one of the arguments used was that the injured party might still leave the damages to be assessed by a jury, if the contract was not kept. Another part of the question was the magnitude of the proposed change. There was hardly an Assizes at which an action of this sort was not tried; and his hon. and learned Friend seemed to assume that in every case the damages were improper. What did that involve? Was it to be assumed that Judges and juries were unfit to administer the law? It was said that this was an action generally brought for purposes of extortion. But the Judges and juries had the matter entirely in their own hands;

    1885
    and a Judge was able to set a jury right, if they were inclined to go wrong. His hon. and learned Friend said that this action was novel and indefensible. For his part, he (the Solicitor General) believed it was as old as, indeed, older, than what they knew as the Roman law, and that it was defensible on its merits. Where, as in this case, they had in various times and countries the same substantive legislation, it indicated that there was in it something answering to the sense of justice in all mankind. The ancient custom of Latium provided that if the agreement was broken for no just cause, the person in fault should be condemned to such damages as should represent the loss of marriage. That, though many centuries old, was an exact exposition of the English law at this moment. It was well worthy of consideration by an Assembly such as he was now addressing, whether a principle so ancient should be lightly got rid of. His hon. and learned Friend said that the French law took no notice of such actions. He thought his hon. and learned Friend was in error. It was said it had been decided that the non-performance of a contract gave the right to damages when it resulted in real prejudice to the other party. But what was the exposition of "real prejudice?" It included the right to damages on account of the wrong the other party suffered in public estimation. The real injury in cases of breach of promise was inflicted upon one sex only; and he, therefore, must confess he regarded with some apprehension the suggestion his hon. and learned Friend had made as to altering the law in a most serious respect. His hon. and learned Friend would leave a real injury practically without remedy at all. The proposal to limit the action was something like an insult, for it meant that if a woman had bought her wedding dress, or the bridal cake, she should receive compensation; but for that which was the greatest loss which could be inflicted upon her she was to have no redress. ["Divide!"] He had no desire to detain the House; but when a most serious innovation in our jurisprudence was proposed, he thought it his duty to express his opinions. As some hon. Gentlemen, who were noted for the extreme moderation of their own talk, on various occasions, were disposed
    1886
    to interfere with what he wished to say upon the subject, he should content himself with saying that he entirely disagreed with the proposition made by his hon. and learned Friend. He believed it would inflict a serious injury upon any State that a recognized wrong should be deprived by the Legislature of a remedy.
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, his hon. and learned Friend who had just sat down (the Solicitor General) seemed to think that by this Resolution it was desired to make an exception in respect of this particular class of actions. The action of breach of promise of marriage was an exceptional action. It was the only action in which damages could be recovered for wounded feelings. ["No!"] He said so; they might bring an action for injury to character, but that was different from wounded feelings. Day by day, in every condition of life, feelings were wounded by words spoken; but no damages could be recovered. Or take the case of a husband or wife who was killed. What damages could be gained for the grief caused to the surviving relative? But under the Roman law damages were granted. The learned Solicitor General said the damages were given for the loss that the woman sustained in consequence of not being allowed to enter into the married state—that was to say, they were to give damages to a woman for not being allowed to marry a man who was unwilling to be married. That could form no ground of damage to a woman, if she had her proper feelings—that she was not to be allowed to spend her life in the society of a man who had no feelings of affection towards her. The action was a punishment on the man who refused to make two lives miserable. A man might have other good reasons for not entering into marriage besides those connected with a commercial spirit. He might have found the temper of the woman not suitable to him; he might have found a temper with which nobody could agree; and they were punishing a man because he had the courage to say—"I think it better in the interests of both of us that our lives should not be spent in misery." He would support the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell).
    COLONEL MAKINS, having listened to the arguments of hon. and learned Mem-

    1887
    bers on both sides, whose opinions appeared to be about equally divided, ventured, as one of the public, to express his views. He thought that the only persons who would suffer, or at least the persons who would principally suffer, if the proposed change in the law were made were eloquent junior counsel, needy and speculative attorneys, and proprietors of newspapers. But, on the other hand, Judges and juries would be saved a great amount of time and trouble, and the public also would probably be benefited by the loss of much exciting and unwholesome reading. For that reason, he had no difficulty in voting for the original Motion.
    MR. HERSCHELL, in reply, said, he had no doubt that what the hon. and learned Solicitor General had stated about the French law had been laid down by certain Courts in certain provinces in France; but it had not been accepted by the best authorities as being according to the French law.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 106; Noes 65: Majority 41.—(Div. List. No. 79.)
    Main Question put.
    Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, the action for Breach of Promise of Marriage ought to be abolished except in cases where actual pecuniary loss has been incurred by reason of the promise, the damages being limited to such pecuniary loss.

  JURORS' REMUNERATION (IRELAND).

    RESOLUTION.
    MAJOR NOLAN, in rising to move—
    "That Jurors in Ireland should be remunerated for the cost to which they are frequently put under the present Law,"
    said, he rose with very great regret, and almost an apology, for bringing an Irish subject before the House at that time, for he would have wished not to have done so, so soon after the death of their great Leader (Mr. Butt), who had served his country so well, and whose loss hon. Members on all sides of the House so deeply deplored. But if he had not brought forward this subject on the present occasion, he would, in all probability, have not been able to find any opportunity of doing so during the present Session, and as when he was last in Ireland he promised several jurors to
    1888
    bring on the matter as early as possible, he felt constrained to do so on the present occasion. The House might not be aware of the great change that had taken place in the last few years in the jury system in Ireland. Formerly, jurors were only chosen from a privileged, exclusive, and small class, and the system had many disadvantages. It had recently, however, been greatly improved, and a great number of the middle class were now eligible to serve. He believed the change thus introduced by Lord O'Hagan's Act was a very valuable one, and that it had been productive of very good results in educating public opinion, and in putting the jury system on a perfectly fair basis. In introducing a change of practice in matters of this kind, however, they could not help inflicting a good deal of inconvenience, and that was exactly what had happened in this case. In Ireland the counties were sub-divided into baronies, and as a consequence of the system pursued in summoning juries, men were often brought from one side of the county to the other to attend Quarter Sessions and Assizes. In his own county of Galway, a juror travelling from Ballymaugh to the town of Galway, where the Assizes and Quarter Sessions were held, would have to travel something like 60 or 70 English miles to obey his summons. He also found a very strong feeling existing among these jurors who were called on to give up a great deal of valuable time to attend the Courts. An additional complaint was that they were often summoned when they were not wanted, as in a recent case at Quarter Sessions, where 125 jurors were summoned, and only 24 were required to serve. These jurors were often put to great inconvenience and loss in attending; but they told him that they did not mind their loss of time, but they did not see why they should also lose the money they had to pay out of pocket for travelling and hotel expenses. Many of them were poor men—only rated at £40 or £50, with incomes not much larger in amount; and it was to them a great expense to have to travel 40 or 50, or, in extreme cases, 60 miles, and to have to live at their own expense in an Assize town for four or five days. He himself quite thought that every juror should give his time for nothing; but, on the other hand, he ought to be paid something to cover the expenses out of

    1889
    pocket, so that he should not lose money as well as time. He would make the payment so low, that the amount received should be rather under than over the amount paid. Prom questions he put to various jurors, he thought from 5s. to 8s. a-day would satisfy the most of them. Some wanted their travelling expenses in addition, but the majority thought a lump payment of about the amount he had indicated would be better. He would leave the House to decide what the amount should be; but a very small sum indeed would make a material difference to men in this position who were most of them men with very small incomes. He knew the argument used against the proposal was that jurors ought to be willing to expend their money as well as time in the service of justice and the country. That was a tenable proposition in one way; but, on the other hand, this was to be viewed as taxation imposed on a particular class of men, many of whom were perfectly unable to boar it. Several classes were altogether exempted from the liability, as doctors, clergymen of all denominations, and many others, so that the small farmers and commercial men constituted the bulk of the jurors, and they alone had to pay that money tax. The cost of the administration of justice ought, confessedly, however, to be spread over all classes of the community, and he did not see why small farmers and commercial men should alone be mulcted. If they gave their time in the lambing season or mowing time, as they often had to do, they ought not also to be called on to bear the entire burden of railway fares and hotel bills. Then the question arose as to the sources from which the money should be obtained. He knew that there was a very great objection to charging local expenses on the Imperial funds; and he, therefore, did not propose that the whole of the cost of this charge should fall upon the Imperial funds. But as, on the other hand, the jurors had to perform duties which were partly Imperial and partly local, and were called upon to judge between the Crown and members of the community, he thought the fair way would be to pay half out of the Imperial Exchequer, and half out of the county rates. The county rate, or county cess, would appear, at first sight, the natural source from which this payment should come; but he would
    1890
    propose, instead, that it should be charged on the poor-rates, because the county cess was paid entirely by the tenant, while the poor-rate was divided between the landlord and the tenant. There would be one great advantage in that division. The main object was to summon sufficient, and not too many, persons at the minimum of inconvenience to them. The jurors now complained that they were summoned too soon, and that certain persons were favoured by omission from the summons list. But if this system of paying jurors was adopted, it would induce the officers of the Crown to be more particular about seeing that jurors were not summoned too soon nor kept unnecessarily long, as they now were. On the other hand, the fact of the allowance being paid partly out of the local rate would make the jurors themselves anxious, in order to keep down the rates, that the amount of the remuneration should be kept within the mark. If there were the same complaints in other counties of Ireland as there were in his own, this would soon become a great question; but it might very reasonably be presumed that the pressure of the inconvenience was only seriously felt in the larger counties. At present it was thought more of in Galway than elsewhere, because the distances the jurors had to travel there were greater than in any other counties of Ireland. He hoped the Government would give some assurance that, in some form or another, the jurors should be recouped at least a portion of their expenses. He had suggested the lines on which the matter might be settled, and he begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That Jurors in Ireland should be remunerated for the cost to which they are frequently put under the present Law."—(Major Nolan.)
    MR. MACARTNEYreminded the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan), that of late years great efforts had been made to add to the jury lists a class of men who, from their position, were almost certain to be incapable, from their limited income, of bearing the expenses of attendance. If, then, these men were unable to bear their own expenses, that surely was rather an argument for not making them jurors than for charging their expenses on the rates.

    1891
    He feared that the satisfaction this proposal would give to the juror would be far more than counterbalanced by the general dissatisfaction at the increase in the rates which must necessarily follow. Again, it would be very unfair to throw half the charge on the Imperial Exchequer, for the Imperial cases certainly were nothing like half of those tried. He did not think this proposal would be received with general satisfaction in Ireland. Every man had to perform a certain amount of duty to the State gratis, and he certainly could see no reason why Irish jurors should be under a different system from that which existed in other parts of the United Kingdom.
    MR. O'SULLIVANsupported the Motion. He could assure the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney) that they did not want a reform in the jury law. All that was asked was, that men who came 25 and 30 miles to perform their duties to the State should have returned to them the bare expenses which they were out of pocket. A poor struggling farmer, with a very small income, was brought from his home to an Assize town, perhaps a distance of some 20 or 30 miles, which would cost him at least 5s. each way, and he could not get on for less than 5s. a-day in the town; so that if he were kept there four or five days it would be a matter of £1 10s. or £2 to him, no inconsiderable sum to a poor man, though it was a mere bagatelle to the county. He really did not think the Government ought to object to so moderate a proposition. Of course, he did not wish the payment to be made to jurors in cities or boroughs, because there the jurors could go home, and were at no expense, as the farmers were. In one case, a farmer complained that he had been fined £2 for non-attendance when his cattle had been seized the day before, and he actually had not the money to pay the railway fare. Such cases showed how poor the tenant-farmers were. He sincerely hoped the Government would do something in the matter.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, he was not sure that the hon. and gallant Member for Galway had considered all the difficulties surrounding this question, or bore in mind the exact position in which
    1892
    they stood in reference to legislation as to the jury laws in Ireland. The terms of the hon. and gallant Member's Resolution were in themselves very vague, and they could hardly, indeed, be more general or indefinite. He simply asked the House to remunerate Irish jurors without specifying the class of jurors, or the character or limit of the remuneration, or source from which it should be paid. The speech of the hon. and gallant Member was more definite; but even that did not define what was wanted with sufficient clearness to make the House to realize what he wished to have done. He understood the hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. O'Sullivan) to say that he wanted the jurors—who were, he (the Attorney General for Ireland) would admit, very poor, and, in some cases, not well educated—to have their expenses paid; but he only asked them for a limited class—namely, for the county jurors, and not for those in boroughs.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, he did not propose to exempt the jurors in small towns. All his hon. Friend had suggested was, that they should exempt the jurors in large cities.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)begged the hon. and gallant Member's pardon. That was precisely the position of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. His proposition was that only jurors in counties should be paid, but that the constituents of hon. Members who represented large boroughs should not be paid. He need not say that any such distinction would introduce, without the smallest possible logical reason, the greatest possible amount of heart-burning. In the boroughs of Galway, Limerick, Waterford, and others, there was a very poor class of jurors, not distinguished in either position, education, or circumstances, from their brethren in the counties; and would it not be very hard to say that they must lose their time, while their more fortunate brethren, who were summoned from outside the boroughs, were to get from 5s. to 10 s. per day? That was the first and a most moderate criticism that he had to make. But, then, who was to bear the cost of this charge? At the first blush, they would surely say it should be the suitors, who had the benefit of the services of these jurors. In civil cases that might in the event

    1893
    of such a change have to be done, and the result would be to weight the litigant still further, and to place a very substantial barrier in the way of poor claimants. The hon. and gallant Member did not seem to have borne this point in mind, for he had quietly proposed that half the expense of this charge should be borne by the poor-rates, which were never adapted or intended for any such matter, and half by the Treasury. He had personally nothing to say to the proposition that half the cost should be borne by the Treasury; but from his (the Attorney General for Ireland's) knowledge of that Department, he ventured to think that his hon. and gallant Friend would find very considerable difficulty in inducing the officers of that Department ever to consent to his proposition. He never yet met a Secretary to the Treasury with a soft heart, and there were many intelligent and close critics in the House who would look with great jealousy on any such proposal as this. Then it must be borne in mind, that there was a great difference between criminal and civil cases, and it was obvious that, while in one case part of the costs should be borne by the ratepayers, the costs in other cases should not be so borne, and in Ireland only one panel was summoned for the trial of both civil and criminal cases. How, then, could they know when a juror was wanted for a civil or a criminal case? It was, therefore, obvious, that there were a variety of difficulties in the way of the adoption of the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member which were of a practical character, and which he did not think appeared to be considered at all. Again, supposing a juror were summoned, and got his expenses, and then did not attend, was that to be treated as a case of obtaining money under false pretences? But, supposing the man was not to be paid till he attended the Court—and it might be said, of course, that the objection he had urged was merely an objection as to the machinery—was he to be paid whether he gave a verdict or whether he did not? Was he to be paid without any regard to the way in which he discharged his duties? Everyone must feel a sympathy with the case of these jurors; but, at the same time, he thought the proposal could not be carried out. It had even been tried for a time in
    1894
    England. In 1870, jurors were put in a very much better position; but the plan did not work. The difficulties were so great, and the cost pressed so seriously upon suitors, that the plan had to be abandoned the year after. As the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney) had said, every man had a certain duty to discharge to his country, and part of that duty cast upon every man was to assist in the administration of justice. It had been said, that this duty of serving on juries exercised great influence on the minds of many persons as a great popular educator, and as teaching the advantages and benefits of the Constitution. But, although he could not agree in the Motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, he went quite as far as he did in practical sympathy for the class of men whom it was sought to benefit. Certainly, everything should be done to place as few inconveniences as possible in the way of persons who were called upon to serve on these juries, and everything should be done to make the times and places convenient for them. An attempt had already been made in this direction by summoning jurors for the Quarter Sessions from the immediate locality. The names, also, were taken in rotation, and men who had once attended, even if they did not serve, were not summoned again till their turn came round. These were attempts by which the inconveniences which unquestionably did press upon jurors were sought to be reduced. He admitted that it was a hardship that men who were very poor should be exposed to this expense and trouble; but it was a duty they owed to the State, and they must not mind being called upon at certain intervals to perform it. He hoped the hon. and gallant Member would be satisfied with the discussion he had raised; and though, as he had said, that he was unable to agree to the Motion, he had pointed out its present position, and when it came to be considered next year, it would be time to see whether further facilities would be placed in the way of jurors, so as to make it as little irksome as possible.
    MR. SHAWhoped his hon. and gallant Friend (Major Nolan) would not divide the House, because he could not say that he was prepared to vote for the Motion, The question was one of con-

    1895
    siderable importance, and great difficulty. He could not for himself see why the jurors in civil cases should not be paid, for law was a luxury which all must pay for. It might, of course, be a tax on poor litigants; but the result would be that these men, instead of going to the Assizes or county towns, would have their cases tried at the Sessions. He remembered that at the last Assizes one man had to travel 100 miles in order to be present. That was a very great grievance, for the man was kept from his business for over a fortnight. Of course, it would be wrong for an impression to get abroad that the people had not a duty to perform in regard to criminal cases, or to allow them to think that they ought to be paid for their services in such matters. But he did think something might be done by dividing the large counties. They had tried that in vain, in Cork, for some time past. Although the injury which some of the poor people suffered by having to travel long distances was manifestly great, he would not, of course, pay jurors in cities; but he did not see why jurors coming from a distance should not receive a small sum, and he thought that might be easily raised, and without coming on the Treasury for it.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, he would not trouble the House with a Division, and he must admit that the question at present was not ripe for decision. Many jurors, certainly, did feel very strongly on the subject; and he should advise them to exercise their Constitutional right of Petition in order to make their grievances known. He must also add that he was not in favour of charging this amount on the suitors, nor did he think any juror should be paid until he attended.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  UNIVERSITY EDUCATION (IRELAND).

    OBSERVATIONS.
    THE O'CONOR DONsaid, it was not his intention, at that late hour, to proceed with a Motion of so much importance as the one of which he had given Notice, respecting University Education in Ireland. But he did venture to ask the Government to give him some facilities for bringing it on, especially as the Morning Sitting of that day
    1896
    had deprived him of what otherwise would have been a very favourable opportunity. The opportunities of bringing forward Motions of that kind were now very small; and as the question was one of very great importance, he hoped the Leader of the House would be able to hold out some hopes of being able to give him some opportunity of introducing the Motion at a reasonably early hour. He did not want it made the First Order, and if it could come on about 10.30 or 11 o'clock, that would be quite sufficient.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied that he would be very glad, if it were in his power, to facilitate the bringing on of the Motion, which he recognized as one of very great importance. He should have thought it was hardly too late even then to bring on the question; but it was a matter of which the hon. Gentleman was himself the best judge. He could not make any promise for that week, at all events; and it was always inconvenient to take the course suggested, because it involved postponing the Orders, a Motion for which might in itself raise debate. The hon. Gentleman might possibly be able to find an opportunity on that day week; but if he could not do that, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would be very glad to see if he could help him in what he desired.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he was quite aware of the difficulties under which the Government laboured in a matter of that kind, and he was, therefore, quite sure his hon. Friend (the O'Conor Don) would avail himself of any opportunities which might come in his way. If, however, his hon. Friend was not successful, then he trusted the Government would take into consideration the appeal which had been made to them, not only on the ground that the Morning Sitting had deprived his hon. Friend of a chance he otherwise would have had, but because of the great importance of the question and the extreme fitness of his hon. Friend for the task he had undertaken. Since that House had lost the services of the late Mr. Butt, whose death they all deeply regretted, he thought the House would agree with him that a task of that kind could not have fallen into better hands. The subject was one with which it was at one time understood the Govern-

    1897
    ment themselves intended to deal this Session, and they had thereby led the House to suppose that they were not indifferent to its importance. If it became necessary, he thought the Government would do well to consider whether they could not grant the request of his hon. Friend.
    THE O'CONOR DONsaid, after the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he would postpone the Bill to that day week, and, should he be again unsuccessful, he trusted he might then make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman.

  TRUSTEES' LIABILITY BILL.
  On Motion of Sir George Bowyer, Bill to amend the Law regarding the Liability of Trustees holding shares in Banks and other Companies, ordered to be brought in by Sir GEORGE BOWYER, Sir EARDLEY WILMOT, and Mr. Serjeant SIMON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 157.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister (51), negatived.
Committee—Elementary Education Provisional Orders Confirmation (Brighton and Preston, &c.)*(48).
Committee—Report—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London)* (47); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Clonmel, &c.)* (49); Metropolis (Little Coram Street, Bloomsbury, Wells Street, Poplar, and Great Peter Street, Westminster) Improvement Provisional Orders Confirmation* (50).
Third Reading—Poor Law Amendment Act (1876) Amendment* (34), and passed.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR— INSTRUCTIONS TO SIR BARTLE FRERE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, some misunderstanding has been caused by the answers which have been given to Questions which were not quite similar in the two Houses of Parliament respecting the instructions to Sir Bartle Frere. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is reported to have said yesterday evening that Sir Bartle Frere had instructions, both negative as to what he was not to do in the policy of annexation and other things of that sort, and positive as to the object which he was to aim at in taking the steps he was to take to preserve the British Colonies from the danger by which they have been threatened by the overwhelming power of the Zulu Force. The noble Earl (Earl Cadogan) on Friday referred to the indications which are given in the despatch of March 20 of the opinion of the Government on these points; and he
  1782
  read an extract exactly in the same sense, but going no further, from a despatch of April 10. He observed that it was impossible for Her Majesty's Government to give more definite instructions till they had received the opinion of Sir Bartle Frere. The point which does not seem to have been cleared up in either House is this—whether Sir Bartle Frere is at liberty, in case the King of the Zulus makes any acceptable proposals, to take any steps at all, or is to refer the matter home, with a necessary delay of about two months. In the despatch of March 20, he is strictly desired to submit all demands and stipulations for the approval of Her Majesty's Government before peace is concluded; and, again, he is directed to avoid taking any decided step or committing himself to any positive conclusion respecting any of the questions until he has received instructions from Her Majesty's Government. My Question is, Whether any such further instructions have been sent to Sir Bartle Frere which enable him to act upon any proposals for peace without further reference to Her Majesty's Government.
  EARL CADOGAN: I have gathered from the ordinary sources of information that some misapprehension seems to exist, of the nature alluded to by the noble Earl, as to an apparent discrepancy between the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the answer I had the honour of giving to the noble Earl. My Lords, I cannot acknowledge on my own part that any such discrepancy exists. The noble Earl asked me, a few nights ago, whether since the despatch, contained in the last Blue Book on the Table of your Lordships' House, any further instructions had been sent to Sir Bartle Frere with regard to the proposals of peace to be made to the King of Zululand. If the noble Earl had limited himself to asking that Question, my answer would have been a very simple one. I would have told him that no further instructions had been sent with regard to the articles of peace to be proposed; but that another despatch had been addressed to Sir Bartle Frere since the 20th of March—namely, on the 10th of April—giving general instructions to the High Commissioner, and expressing an earnest hope on the part of Her Majesty's Government that the military operations now being

  1783
  carried on would be directed to the bringing about of peace at the earliest possible opportunity. With regard to the instructions conveyed in the despatch of March 20, I can only repeat what I stated the other night—that in that dispatch the opinion of the Government was very clearly stated on at least two most important points contained in the Ultimatum presented by Sir Bartle Frere. It informed him that Her Majesty's Government would insist on the establishment of a British Resident in Zululand; and, further, that they were determined to insist on the disbandment of the Zulu Army—that is to say, the modification of the military system in Zululand. The noble Earl, formerly the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Kimberley), stated that he considered that no instructions, or rather that only negative instructions, had been sent, and that Sir Bartle Frere had at this moment no means of knowing the terms on which he was to enter into the consideration of conditions of peace, should negotiations commence. My Lords, I believe the matter stands thus. If Sir Bartle Frere has an opportunity of commencing negotiations for peace with the King of the Zulus, he has ample instructions—ample knowledge of the views of Her Majesty's Government as to the main points upon which such negotiations should be framed. Further than that, no instructions have been sent to him. Although, as I understand, he certainly has full liberty to commence negotiations, he can take no decided step without previously obtaining the sanction of Her Majesty's Government—a limitation to which, after the proceedings in this House at an earlier part of the Session, the noble Earl and his Friends will probably not object.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, his recollection was rather at variance with the explanation now given. He understood the other evening that Her Majesty's Government were waiting for some further information from Sir Bartle Frere before they could be in a condition to give him instructions as to the terms of peace. He now understood that further instructions had been given which contained the principles on which Sir Bartle Frere might negotiate.
  EARL CADOGAN: I wish to be clearly understood. I do not mean to say that further instructions as to conditions of
  1784
  peace have been given to Sir Bartle Frere besides those contained in the despatch of March 20.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The noble Earl says Her Majesty's Government are awaiting further information from Sir Bartle Frere. I beg to ask the noble Earl whether that is the position of the matter?
  EARL CADOGAN: In the despatch of the 20th of March, Her Majesty's Government have asked the opinion of Sir Bartle Frere as to certain matters, and I think your Lordships will be of opinion that it is natural that no further instructions should be sent to him until his replies have been received.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that nothing could be fairer than the statement of the noble Earl; but still this matter was not quite clear. He was still at a loss to know whether Sir Bartle Frere was in a position to come to a positive conclusion without receiving further instructions from Her Majesty's Government.
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: I think, my Lords, it is unusual that a subject of this importance should be brought on without some notice. I may say that, in my opinion, Sir Bartle Frere is sufficiently acquainted now with the general views of the Government on what I consider the vital grounds upon which peace may be re-established to act for himself. It is unfortunate that the means of communication are so difficult—but, at all events, he is fully acquainted with the leading principles on which we expect peace to be established between Her Majesty and the King of the Zulus. There may be reserve as to details, and it is impossible but that such should be the case, as the means of communication with Sir Bartle Frere is not easy. No doubt, it will be necessary that Sir Bartle Frere should consult the Government further; but at present he may enter upon negotiations for peace with a thorough knowledge of the main principles of the policy of the Government.
  EARL GRANVILLE: Would there be any objection to producing the Papers which give Sir Bartle Frere the authority he possesses?
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: I understand that further Papers will shortly be laid upon the Table, and from them, no doubt, the noble Earl will obtain the information he desires.

LETTERKENNY RAILWAY BILL.

  MOTION FOR RE-COMMITMENT.
  VISCOUNT LIFFORD, in moving that the Bill be re-committed, said, that it was one which vitally concerned a district as large as Oxfordshire, in a county in which he was the only resident Peer. He made no charge against the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, who had said that this Motion was an insult, and had even announced that he would resign his high Office if it were carried. It was no insult to any man to say that he had made an error of judgment. The Company was incorporated 19 years ago. The promoters were not sufficiently aware that, in a county so thinly inhabited by the upper classes as Donegal, third-class passengers and the port and mart to which they had to take their produce were to be looked to; and the line was run towards Dublin rather than towards Londonderry. This was remedied by an Act of 1863, which enabled them to run direct to Derry by joining a railway called the Lough Swilly line. Up to 1865, £80,000 had been expended. From that time to the present five Acts had been obtained at the cost of private subscriptions for an extension of time, and the efforts of the directors to go on with the work had been unceasing. There were law, land, and engineering debts amounting to £20,000. Assuming that the directors could place two mortgages, amounting to £85,000, there was a third of the £15,000 of no value whatever; and it was in assuming that they could place this, and in forgetting their debts, that the error of the noble Earl consisted. With their £65,000 the directors could find a contractor and make their line, but only on the narrow gauge; and when the line was made they thought they would be able to place the third mortgage of £15,000. They had found it impossible to make a broad gauge line. Narrow gauge lines had been tried with success in Ireland, Scotland, and the Isle of Man; and many shareholders now regretted their lines were made before it was discovered that a 3 feet gauge was as convenient and practicable as the broad gauge; while it was far more easily made and far more cheaply worked. The promoters of the line into which the above would run, which had never paid any dividend, were ready to alter their gauge
  1786
  to the narrow gauge; the people of the district were unanimously in favour of the Bill, and ready to be taxed for a guarantee by a rate on each farm-holding. They thought it strange the noble Earl should think he knew their affairs better than they did themselves. The Standing Orders only gave the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees power, "if he thinks fit," to report to the House that any unopposed Bill should be proceeded with as an opposed Bill. There was an utter absence of any trace of a Resolution giving him the enormous power of rejecting Bills because they were unopposed. His only discretion seemed to be that of either passing a Bill or referring it to a Select Committee; and he asked their Lordships to act on the 95th Standing Order, and refer this Bill, if still opposed by the noble Chairman, to a Select Committee as an opposed Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be re-committed."—(The Viscount Lifford.)
  LORD WAVENEY, in support of the Motion, urged that for years the promoters of the Bill had been vainly endeavouring to raise the capital necessary for the construction of a broad-gauge line; they had tried every expedient, and they had utterly failed. Meanwhile, the advance of engineering skill had rendered more easy than before the construction and working of a narrow-gauge line, by which alone it was possible to develop the resources of this part of the country and provide a remunerative traffic for the existing lines. In cases of this kind, it was found desirable that Grand Juries of counties should give a guarantee, in order that lines on the narrow gauge might be made. He was quite aware that it was a breach of the law to make such a railway; but public policy had justified that breach of that law. But cases arose where even the powers of a guarantee failed, and in those instances where narrow gauge lines had been sanctioned they had developed a large part of the district. It should also be borne in mind that the narrow-gauge lines were merely supplemental lines to the broad-gauge railways, and could not be called competing lines. In the existing circumstances of Ireland, it would be utterly hopeless to do any thing to develop railway communication in this part of the country

  1787
  except in the manner proposed by this Bill.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES)said, that if their Lordships knew what the Private Business of the House was, they would see the necessity of supporting the authority vested in and exercised by the Chairman of Committees. Of the 64 Bills commenced in that House that Session, four, at least, contained provisions which ought not to be enacted by Private Bill legislation. One Bill promoted by a company, and giving them powers in relation to the control and management of their own business, sought to impose fines on offenders in a manner which could not be entertained except in public legislation. In other cases, too, promoters sought to do things by private legislation which were contrary to public policy. This Bill came before him as an unopposed Private Bill; it proposed to alter the line to a 3 feet gauge, instead of the national gauge, and the question for him to consider was whether this was a proper thing for him to sanction. He expressed a doubt about it, and the promoters asked that time should be allowed to enable them to produce more evidence, which he granted. He inquired into the case, and found that the company had been a very unfortunate one. It had been some 18 years in existence, and had done little, except under their first Act they had spent £80,000. Nearly all the land had been purchased, and all the works executed were for a national gauge line. The Resolution passed by their Lordships' House the other evening was that it was expedient to sanction the construction of narrow-gauge railways in districts where there were difficulties in the way, or that national gauge railways would be unremunerative. Now, in this particular case, there were no difficulties in the way of constructing a broad-gauge line; and with respect to its being unremunerative, the same company came to Parliament last year and asked for compulsory powers to purchase certain lands, and an extension of time to complete the line to 1881, but never said a word about requiring more capital or constructing it on a narrow gauge. Under these circumstances, he refused to sanction the scheme. The simple question was whether it was desirable to allow an existing company to lay down an arrow-gauge line. The
  1788
  invariable rule of the House was, when a Bill was reported against in any way, it was never re-committed, except with the consent of the Committee, considering that they had not the proper evidence before them. The whole question turned on this. Had they confidence in the Chairman of Committees? If not, he was no longer fit for the Office he held. He had been 29 years Chairman of Committees, and this was the first time anything of this kind had been brought against him. The jurisdiction he excercised was committed to him by the House for the advantage of the public. His discretion or authority might be questioned, and the judgment of the noble Viscount (Viscount Lifford) might be preferred to his; but if the House should so decide, he considered that his utility as Chairman of Committees was gone, and he was no longer fit to hold his Office. He must say he should pity the man who came after him.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he would not go into the merits of this case—the House invariably refused to re-commit a Bill if the Committee were of opinion there was no primâ facie case. The noble Earl in this House represented the Committee, and they had heard what he had stated. The practice was essential to the good working of the private legislation of the House, and he certainly should not be a party to question or weaken the authority of the Chairman of Committees. The noble Earl had been Chairman of Committees, as he had stated, for 29 years, and by the able manner in which he had discharged his arduous duties he had done more than any other individual in the House to maintain the high character of the House with regard to Private Business.
  After a few words from Viscount Liepord, which were inaudible,
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: I remember in the other House of Parliament there was a Rule that Ministers should never vote on Private Bills or anything connected with them. I wish that was the Rule in the House where I have the honour to sit at present. Both my Colleagues and I would then feel free from much painful responsibility. The question is one of some complication, and there are points on which two opinions may be fairly formed; but I think the evils to the public and to

  1789
  the Private Business of the House would be so great if our Chairman of Committees were not supported that I cannot approve of the Motion.
  On Question? Resolved in the Negative.

MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.—(No. 51.)
(The Lord Houghton.)
MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.—(No. 51.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE PRINCE OF WALES: My Lords, I have to present to your Lordships a Petition, signed by 3,258 farmers of Norfolk, praying for the legalization of marriage with a deceased wife's sister. I present it, my Lords, on local as well as on general grounds. It is my firm conviction that if this Bill passed it would be of advantage to the community at large; and I shall, therefore, give my hearty support to the noble Lord who moves the second reading of the Bill to-night.
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELDalso presented a Petition in favour of the Bill to the same effect from 1,152 farmers of Buckinghamshire.
  Petitions were also presented from the Convention of the Royal Burghs of Scotland; from certain Aldermen and Common Councillors of London, and others.
  LORD HOUGHTON*, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said: My Lords, I bring this Bill forward as a measure of relief. I use the word advisedly, as one with which our Legislature is familiar. Such relief is given from restrictions imposed in other periods, and under other influences of thought and action, of which these are the survivals, but which are now neither politic nor desirable. Such was the great measure of relief commonly called Catholic Emancipation, such the relief from the Jewish Disabilities. I am most anxious to induce your Lordships to regard this measure in this aspect; for just as Catholic Emancipation was carried by the great Party that had made the Protestant Revolution, and as the advocates for the relief of the Jews in no way impugned the priceless worth of Christianity, so, in giving your assent to this Bill, I do not ask your Lordships for your individual approval or sanction, but only for your removal of a restric-
  1790
  tion in the case of others who hold a different opinion. You may believe that these marriages are inappropriate, unwise, and even inconvenient to certain classes of society, and yet believe that you have no right to prevent them. I would further ask your Lordships to consider this question, not only apart from all Party motives, but also from any associations of the Order to which you especially belong, and to regard it solely as connected with the habits and desires of a large mass of the British nation, comprising not only the workers in the field and city, but that large middle class whose habits are in some degree different from your own, but whose wishes, expressed decidedly as they have been, your Lordships would do wisely not to neglect.
  I am relieved from the necessity of going into a long historical narration by the circumstance that the question is not a new one to your Lordships. You know, as well as I do, how closely it has connected itself with some of the most important events in English history. The dispute of a marriage of affinity not only affected the succession of the English Crown for a century, but changed the religion of the English people. Forbidden by the Statute of Henry VIII.—which, in itself, implied their previous legality under the dispensation of the Church—these marriages were expressly sanctioned by the Act of the test of Philip and Mary, and the subsequent abolition either of that Act, or only of a portion of it, by Elizabeth, afforded ground for legal arguments and contradictory judicial decisions. But, at any rate, the legislation on these two Acts remained confined to the uncertain, and, so to say, semi-legal operation of the Ecclesiastical Courts, which practically made these marriages, not void ab initio, but only voidable by legal process so easily debarred and circumvented as to be very rarely put in action.
  This state of things continued down to the reign of William IV., when, in 1835, special attention was called to the subject by a Bill brought in by Lord Lyndhurst for the purpose of validating such marriages. Although this measure may have been set in motion to meet a special case, it was intended as a measure of general relief, and only in consequence of the urgency of that case,

  1791
  in which every day was deemed of importance by the parties immediately concerned, was the opposition, weak in itself, but fortified by private considerations, met by the insertion of a clause declaring all such marriages prior to the passing of the Bill valid, and all similar marriages in the future void. This clause was rejected by the House of Commons, and the Bill so amended came up again to this House, when the clause was re-inserted; and, as it was late in the Session—everyone knows what happens at the end of a Session—the Bill was allowed to pass with this obnoxious clause, but with an undertaking, between Lord Lyndhurst and other parties interested in the matter, that this limitation should be removed in the ensuing Session. And natural enough would have been this expectation, even without any private agreement. For what, my Lords, was the moral position to which the House and the country were committed by the passing of that Act? The Legislature declared that such marriages after a certain date were to be unlawful, and in the religious aspect sinful, and yet they were made obligatory on all who had contracted them up to that date. By one part of that Act Parliament placed a certain number of persons in a position in which, if they came to consider these marriages wrong and void, they could be enforced upon them by an action for the restitution of conjugal rights; by another clause Parliament declared them void ab initio, and by implication sinful. There neither was, nor is there, in fact, in the Statute Book of any country in the world an Act so inconsistent in its provisions, so repugnant to common sense, and so shocking to the first dictates of morality. When, then, notwithstanding the passing of Lord Lyndhurt's Act, virtuous men and women went on contracting these marriages just as they had done, it should never be forgotten what is the character of the legality they disregarded—what is the abnormal and distorted legislation they defied. I especially recommend this consideration to those of your Lordships who look on the retrospective clause of this Act as obnoxious and uncalled for. But law-abiding Englishmen chafed under the anomaly and injustice of this position, and before long two men, whose names are dear to this
  1792
  House—the first Lord Wharncliffe and the first Lord Ellesmere—brought the question in successive years before the House of Commons, the ultimate result being that a Royal Commission, on which sat eminent lawyers representing the three parts of the United Kingdom, presided over by a most estimable occupant of the right reverend Bench, Bishop Lonsdale, was appointed to consider the whole question anew. That Commission reported, in 1848, that they would give no opinion on the subject-matter; but they were convinced that these marriages were going on quite as much as heretofore—that they were contracted by persons of good social position and of the best moral character, and that they could not be affected by legislation one way or the other. The Commission, therefore, left the question to the wisdom of Parliament to solve as best they might, in no way impugning their right of action or prejudicing the justice of the case. Accordingly, attempts were again made to remedy the state of the law by the introduction of Bills in the House of Commons similar to that now before your Lordships. Seven times has the will of the people been expressed by various majorities, sometimes approaching 100, in support of these Bills, and seven times have they been rejected by the House of Lords. That, assuredly, is not a satisfactory position in which to leave the question, and in the meantime these marriages are multiplying every day. No less an average than 50 are annually contracted by British subjects in the small town of Neufchatel alone, notwithstanding that the marriages so celebrated on the Continent, and once assumed to be valid in this country, have now been decided to be illegal, on no special ground but on the general issue that the lex loci abroad cannot supersede an explicit English law.
  During this period our Colonies have not been silent, and to this fact I desire to draw your Lordships' serious attention. South Australia, Victoria, Tasmania, New South Wales, Queensland, and Western Australia, have passed Acts legalizing these marriages. A Bill of the same nature has passed the Lower House of New Zealand, and twice in the Legislature of Natal, which Colony has now, unfortunately, something else to think of. Such marriages are practically legal in the whole Canadian Domi-

  1793
  nion, the West Indies, and, it is believed, in tire Channel Islands. At home, the question has made great progress, especially in Scotland and Ireland. I remember the time when only three Representatives from Scotland could be counted in support of the Bill; but now you have the important Petitions from the Convention of Royal Burghs, representing 60 municipalities, which I present to-night, as well as many representative Petitions from other municipalities not included in the Convention. The magistrates and Town Council of Edinburgh recently agreed by a majority of 24 to 12 to Petition in support of the measure, and the United Presbyterian Church have, through their kirk sessions and presbyteries, arrived at the conclusion that marriages of the nature with which this Bill deals ought not to be a bar to Church membership. As to Ireland, I may state that the Corporation of Dublin have five times sent Petitions to this House, and that 40 other corporations in Ireland have petitioned in the same sense. I may also mention that the late respected Cardinal Cullen authorized me to say that he had no difficulty in acceding privately to the opinion expressed by Cardinal Wiseman, and other dignitaries of that Church, although he declined to sign any Petition because of the difference of views existing among his clergy. In England, the most important corporations, that of the City of London being at the head of them, have repeated their adhesions; and this evening the Petitions presented by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, and by the Prime Minister, as well as that by myself from three Bishops and upwards of 200 Roman Catholic clergy, including the Superiors of the chief religious Orders, confirm our opinion.
  The Petitions from the farmers of Norfolk and the County of Buckingham show that in those districts there is an especially large majority of persons who desire a change in the existing law. It is, perhaps, in the comparatively lonely and separate life of the English farmer that this restriction presses most habitually and cruelly; for, in the larger towns, there is a freer intercourse, and more opportunity for selection.
  With regard to the present position of the question, I should have wished to have dealt with it exclusively as a social
  1794
  one, and I need not assure your Lordships that I am deeply impressed with the gravity of this aspect of the subject. This is a point of view in which every man must judge for himself, but with this limitation—that he must remember that this Bill is not intended to operate to any largo extent in the rank of life to which your Lordships belong, but among the less favoured and more numerous classes of the nation. In my own belief, the passing of this measure will make no practical difference in the relations of the domestic life of any order of society, and will rather tend to diminish than increase the probability of scandal, and the obliquities of suspicion. The goodwill accorded to these marriages in Now England, where they are not only permitted but favoured by public opinion, confirms the probability of this issue.
  My Lords, I deeply regret that the rejection of the Bill is to be moved by my right rev. Friend (the Bishop of London), not only from the personal authority and individual gravity of that opposition, but from the inevitable consequence that the question is thus taken out of the sphere of ordinary debate, and transferred to the sphere of religious controversy. Surely, it would have been wiser and happier if the right rev. Bench had allowed this matter to be at least ostensibly decided by their lay Colleagues. It should not be forgotten that all the Nonconformist Bodies, without the exception of a single sect, are in favour of the Bill; and what is the immense proportion they bear in the Christian community of this country? The present law is, most unfortunately, maintained chiefly by the action of the Church of England; and I cannot think that the rigorous opposition of the right rev. Bench to this Bill in comparison with the interest they take in the discussions of the House, and the infrequency of their attendance at its deliberations, will contribute to the national goodwill to the Church. There can be no pretence of special grievance on the part of the Church of England necessarily resulting from this measure, because no minister who does not wish to celebrate such marriages would be compelled to do so. If it is thought worth while, a clause to that effect can be inserted in Committee; but, as in the case of the marriage

  1795
  of divorced persons, the opinion and feelings of every cleryman would be undoubtedly respected without any such provision.
  With regard to the oft-cited passage in the Book of Leviticus, it would be interesting if any member of the learned Body now engaged in the revision of the Old Testament would inform the House what opinion had been expressed as to the admissibility of the marginal reading so much relied upon by opponents of these marriages. On this point there has been so much learned and unlearned discussion in both Houses that I will content myself with citing a passage in a letter I lately received from the eminent Oriental scholar, Professor Max Muller, who says—
  "How any Hebrew scholar could so misinterpret Leviticus xviii. 18, as to make it a prohibition of marriage with a deceased wife's sister is a puzzle to me. I know of one analogous case only—the falsification of a verse in the ' Veda,' by which it was turned into a commandment for the burning of a widow on the death of her husband."
  But this episcopal attitude, no doubt, places the parochial clergy in a painful position. A considerable number, including the late excellent vicar of my own nearest town, make no secret of their habit of celebrating these marriages without questioning the parties beyond the liturgical form, in the plain interests of decency and morality; but others, no doubt, like a "Poor Parson," who wrote an affecting appeal that appeared in The Standard newspaper during the last winter, have scruples and anxieties which I call on your Lordships to relieve. This letter ended thus—
  "I sincerely hope that something will be done to remedy the painful position of thousands of deserving families during the coming Session of Parliament, for, if not, I am convinced that the question will be made very prominent in the next General Election; and I would not support any Member who would not pledge himself to vote for the removal of this oppressive law."
  It is in this sense, also, that the opinion of that great Divine of our Church, the late Dean Hook, is especially valuable. It has, indeed, been so often quoted that I should not now repeat it but for one unfortunate circumstance. In the interesting life of that good man, lately published, it is recorded that his opinion at one period was in accordance
  1796
  with that of the right rev. Bench; but it is strangely omitted that the practical experience of his administration of the great parish of Leeds altogether altered his views, and made him an earnest advocate of this measure. I trust this error, which I hope was unintentional, will be rectified in another edition. In the meantime, I will read to you an extract from this letter of Dr. Hook, and ask you to think how strong must have been the conviction which not only contradicted his former conviction, but placed him in open antagonism with the noble Lord who once occupied the Woolsack in this House, and with whom he was connected by a friendship that may find a place in any future English treatise, De Amicitâ. Dr. Hook wrote, in 1849—
  "If a Bill were brought into Parliament to compel me to solemnize such marriages, I should resist it as an act of tyranny. But Mr. Wortley does not propose to compel the Church to solemnize such marriages. Therefore, as a Churchman, I have no ground for complaint against his measure. … People in general do not consider such marriages improper. They cannot be proved to be improper by Scripture. The question is, therefore, one of expediency, and my experience as a parochial minister induces me to think the measure expedient."
  And he concludes—
  "On these grounds, if ever a Convocation be called, and I be elected one of the proctors, I shall move for an alteration, in this regard, in the table of kindred and affinity. Until this be the case, I shall be glad to see such marriages legalized by the civil rite."
  And now, my Lords, I pray you to give a second reading to this Bill. If you do so, you will relieve thousands of your fellow-citizens, honest men and honest women, from a deep sense of partial legislation and cruel injustice; if you reject this Bill, you will force on them the conviction that they might, like yourselves, enjoy the great happiness of family life with those they love best, without discomfort to themselves or dishonour to their offspring, were it not for the intolerance of the Church of England and the social prejudices of the House of Lords. The noble Lord concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Houghton.)
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONwas understood to express his regret that he felt

  1797
  himself obliged to oppose the noble Lord who had just sat down on a subject which that noble Lord had made his own by a perseverance which, he must say, he thought worthy of a better cause. He could not, however, admit that a Bishop of the Church of England should not take part in a discussion like the present. If they were to be excluded from expressing an opinion on a subject such as this, in what discussions were they to be permitted? The Bill before the House proposed to alter a law which was undoubtedly the law of the Christian Church—a law which was closely connected with the happiness, the peace, and the purity of family life; and if the Bishops of the Church of England were not to be allowed to stand forward and express their opinion on such a proposal, he hardly know of and question on which they were to exercise that right. The noble Lord (Lord Houghton) had advocated the Bill on the ground of popular feeling, and had appealed to the Petitions which had been presented in its favour, to the proceedings of the other House of Parliament, and to the large number of the cases in which these marriages had been contracted; but he scarcely glanced at the reasons which had always been urged in opposition to the measure, not only by the Bench of Bishops, but by a largo proportion of the clergy and laity of the Church, as well as by many Nonconformists. With respect to Petitions, their Lordships would know how to discount the value of them by the circumstances which had given rise to them. Ever since the passing of Lord Lyndhurst's Act, no doubt, many persons who had, unhappily, contracted such marriages—many of them estimable and charitable men, influenced by natural feelings—had agitated the question; and by the agency of canvassers all over the country, by advertisements in newspapers, and other means, persistent efforts had been made to obtain a great number of Petitions on behalf of that proposed change from all classes and various grades of society. The great body of the public, however, who desired no change, had, as usual, remained quiet; and they had meanwhile placed confidence in the wisdom of Parliament, and had presented few such Petitions, because they relied that it would not hastily sanction any such measure. The Petitions presented in
  1798
  favour of the change had emanated, it was to be observed, from men. Was the noble Lord opposite prepared to say that the women of England were on his side? [Lord HOUGHTON: Yes.] He entirely dissented from that statement. He believed that the immense majority of the women of England were against that measure. There had been eight Parliaments since the passing of Lord Lyndhurst's Act. Out of these eight, the second, third, fourth, and seventh declared themselves in favour of the Bill. The fifth Parliament rejected it altogether in one year; in the next year the second reading was carried, but the Bill failed in Committee. The first, sixth, and eighth Parliaments rejected it. Did that show that opinion had increased in its favour? The majorities for it were never large; they ranged from 7 to 99. The first time the Bill was carried in the House of Commons the majority was 52; the last time it was41:so that, so far as the test of Divisions in the other House went, opinion in favour of the Bill had not progressed since 1842. The measure had never passed a second reading in their Lordships' House, and he sincerely trusted it never might do so. The noble Lord (Lord Houghton) had referred to the legislation of the Colonies on that subject. Some of our Colonies had, doubtless, adopted this law. He did not question their competency to pass such a measure if they thought fit; but he thought their Lordships were hardly prepared to follow the Colonies in all their legislation. The noble Lord had briefly touched upon what he called the peculiar notions of the Church of England in reference to this subject; but the noble Lord appeared to forget that the Christian Church had held these peculiar notions for probably 1,800 years. The noble Lord had dwelt upon what might be termed the Scripture arguments in favour of this Bill. It was true that there was no direct prohibition of these marriages to be found in Scripture; but it must not be assumed that, therefore, it was intended to approve them. Because the Scriptures did not prohibit a man from marrying his own daughter, although a son was prohibited from marrying his mother, it would be absurd to contend that this authorized marriages between fathers and their daughters. The inference that the

  1799
  Church had from the earliest times drawn from the Scriptures was that these marriages were unlawful. It was true that the Church of Rome had occasionally granted dispensations permitting such marriages; but that Church had also granted dispensations permitting marriages where the relationship between the parties was much nearer, and was clearly within the prohibited degrees. The Jews were not united on the subject, one sect permitting, and the other prohibiting, these marriages. Much stress was laid upon the fact that in the 18th verse of the 18th chapter of Leviticus, a man was prohibited from marrying his wife's sister during the life of his wife; and here, again, the inference was drawn that this was an indirect authorization of the marriage after the wife's death. He, however, could not place that construction upon the language of the verse. Referring to the social aspect of the case, he felt that, if this Bill were to become law, great evil must necessarily result. He was astonished to hear the noble Lord state that a large proportion of these marriages took place among the middle classes. His own experience had naturally been mostly amongst the middle classes; and he could assure the noble Lord, from that experience, that the number of such marriages was very small. Under the existing law the relationship of a husband with that of his wife's sister was that of almost brother and sister, and it led to much comfort and happiness in households. This was not a state of things that should be touched without very great consideration. The position of the wife's sister in a household must become much changed if she might become the wife, and might be becoming already the rival, of her sister's husband; and although there might, of course, be well-balanced minds upon which the change in the law would produce but little effect, nevertheless there were many other persons of a jealous disposition who would find that such a change would tend to disunite their households. If it were true that the happiness of married life and the peace and purity of the family were maintained by the restriction which at present existed, as he held they were, their Lordships would not be justified in taking away that prohibition. It was said that the sister of a deceased wife was the true guardian of her orphan children.
  1800
  He entirely appreciated that argument—none were so fitted to take the place of the deceased mother in the care of her children than that mother's sister, and on that ground he trusted their Lordships would not deprive children so placed of that protection; for he believed that the effect of this measure, in the majority of cases, would be to deprive their children of their natural guardian. For his part, he believed from his experience of a large population—and such also was the experience of other clergymen with large parishes—that the proportion of widowers who desired to marry their deceased wife's sister was very small; and, to enable the few to marry their children's aunts, this measure would deprive the children of the many of an aunt's almost parental care. It was, no doubt, hard that those who had disregarded the law should find themselves in their present condition, and he could not but sympathize with them; but that was no sufficient reason for altering the law. This was not a time to interfere with the sanctity of domestic life. Very recently the painful case had been brought under his notice of a man who had married his deceased son's widow, and who defended the act on the very ground that marriage with a deceased wife's sister was defended—that he was the natural guardian of his son's children. An advertisement had recently appeared in a newspaper calling upon those who desired to marry their nieces not to trouble themselves to petition in support of Sir Thomas Chambers's Bill, because, as a necessary consequence of the passing of that Bill, a Bill to legalize such marriages would be sure to be introduced and carried. He regretted that this Bill had been brought in. These were questions which it was almost as mischievous to raise as to carry; and the mere possibility that this Bill might become law might cause hopes which ought never to be excited, and suggest fears which had better not be felt. And he hoped that their Lordships would not only reject it, but do so by such a majority as might settle the question for the present generation at least—that they would show by their vote on this occasion that they refused to alter a law which had, at least, some claim to be a law of God; and which was undoubtedly a law of the Church. It would show, too, that their Lordships

  1801
  were not disposed to legislate for the few to the detriment of the many, or to disturb the peace and happiness of families, and injure the purity of domestic life. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that he was at the Colonial Office when the first Bill to legalize marriage with a deceased wife's sister was received in this country from South Australia. As their Lordships were aware, he had always been in favour of the present Bill; nevertheless, when the first Colonial Bill came before him, he hesitated to advise Her Majesty to assent to it, having regard to the extreme inconvenience of there being different marriage laws in different parts of the Empire. The Bill, accordingly, went back to the Colony. It was once more passed by the Legislature; and, in these circumstances, believing it to be unwise to maintain the conflict with Colonial opinion, he advised Her Majesty to assent to the Bill, which accordingly became law. The argument, however, offered by the noble Lord (Lord Houghton), that because these Colonial Acts were passed therefore a similar Act ought to be passed for this country, was one which he felt bound personally to repudiate. It might be perfectly legitimate for a Colony possessing self-government to alter its marriage laws if it thought fit; but it was altogether unreasonable that that Colony on its part should dictate to the Mother Country what policy it ought to pursue. Into the general question he did not wish to enter further than to say that he did not see why they should be bound by the Levitical law in this matter. What they had to consider was, whether in a case in which such strong feeling existed, it was wise to maintain a prohibition which was calculated to produce much social misery. He thought not, and should, therefore, as heretofore, vote in favour of the Bill.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, the right rev. Prelate had endeavoured to show that these marriages were prohibited in Scripture, by inference that the prohibitions in case of males
  1802
  applied also to females; but by thus defending the law, which was a shred and relic of canon law, he would be taxing the Catholic Church of Rome with having for a long period granted dispensations from the Divine Law, when it was well known that that Church never granted dispensations, except from its own regulations. The right rev. Prelate also referred to the Creek Church; but the prohibitions of that Church were very far fetched; for instance, it did not allow two brothers to marry two sisters, and it did not allow a woman to be married more than three times in her lifetime. The right rev. Prelate also referred to Mussulman law; but, with regard to that, he had been misinformed. Mussulman law forbade a man to marry two sisters at once; but it allowed a man to marry a deceased wife's sister, as there was no relationship between them. Clause 2 of the Bill showed that the present state of the law was an incentive to wrong and injustice, since a man might marry his deceased wife's sister abroad, and get rid of her by marrying another woman; and that was hardly a state of things which the right rev. Bench would wish to encourage.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, he wished only to say a few words on the question. He had heard this question discussed in the other House again and again, and he regretted that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Houghton) had not taken the advice given him by Sir George Grey, 16 or 18yearsago, when the Bill was first introduced by him, that if he did not succeed at once in carrying it he should desist from, the further agitation of a question which caused so much distress in the country. The noble Lord said the arrangement of a wife's unmarried sister taking charge of her brother-in-law a house was an unusual one. That statement was made in a previous debate in the House of Commons; and a distinguished Member of that House, whose name he would not mention, but who was a distinguished Member of that House, rose in his place and gave a practical refutation to it by stating that he himself for many months had enjoyed the benefit of such an arrangement; and with much emotion, and with great effect upon his audience, deplored the disturbance of such relations by such a measure. Were the Bill to pass, the relationship which now existed between brothers and sisters-in-law,

  1803
  which was similar to that existing between actual brothers and sisters, would be destroyed; and for that reason he opposed the present Bill. That relationship was of a much higher order than that which was desired by the promoters of the Bill. At present a woman could take charge of her brother-in-law's children, with no thought of passion, with nothing but an unselfish desire to do her sisterly duty, with no idea which could bring a blush to her cheek; but if this Bill passed, there would be a danger that an entirely different state of things would be introduced. The noble Lord opposite(Lord Houghton) stated that the vicar of a certain parish shut his eyes to the existing' prohibition in regard to the marriage of brothers and sisters-in-law, and introduced persons into what was practically a state of concubinage; but it was hardly conceivable that a clergyman of the Church of England could so far forget his duty. Such marriages might be made lawful, but they could never, in his opinion, be made expedient. He entirely agreed with the right rev. Prelate who had addressed the House (the Bishop of London) that degrees of affinity were equally forbidden with degrees of consanguinity. He was not afraid to take his stand against the Bill, therefore, on the religious question. Looking at the matter from the social point of view, it would surely be admitted that a State had the right to lay down whatever laws it thought expedient. Now, this measure was one of those which, in common, he believed, with the mass of the people in this country, he regarded as in expedient. It was all very well to sanction only one degree of affinity in marriage; but could they stop there? The right rev. Prelate had given instances of marriages which appeared shocking to them at this moment; but these might perfectly well arise if the Bill were passed. He remembered, in the debate to which he had referred, Lord Russell saying that other decrees of affinity ought to be placed in the Bill, and that the same law should apply to brothers as to sisters. Thus, it appeared to the man of the great ability, the great reasoning power, and the great knowledge of human nature of Earl Russell, that a measure like the present would necessarily go much further than
  1804
  the noble Lord opposite supposed. The Bill would settle nothing. It would lead to renewed agitation; and they would before long be called upon to do for brothers what they were now asked to do with regard to sisters, and thus there would be no stop until they were urged to do things which were now shocking in their eyes. The noble Lord said he would do something in Committee, if the House wished it; but the Bill was out of the noble Lord's hands, and in possession of the House. It was retrospective in its character, and all those who had wilfully broken the law it proposed to place in the same position as those who had observed the law. Now, that result would be so injurious to the public interests that of itself it would be sufficient to condemn the Bill. In conclusion, he would only say that, in his opinion, it would ill become a Judicial House like that of their Lordships' to pass a Bill which contained so much that was contrary to the principles of morality and the common welfare.
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 81: Not-Contents 101: Majority 20.

  CONTENTS.

  Wales, H.R.H. the Prince of

  Cardwell, V.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Edinburgh, H.R.H. D.

  Hill, V.

  Bedford, D.

  Lifford, V.

  Devonshire, D.

  Powerscourt, V.

  Manchester, D.

  Abergavenny, M.

  Ripon, L. Bp.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Aberdare, L.

  Ripon, M.

  Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

  Auckland, L.

  Airlie, E.

  Belper, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Derby, E.

  Ellesmere, E.

  Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

  Fortescue, E.

  Granville, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Harrington, E.

  Carrington, L.

  Ilchester, E.

  Charlemont, L. (E. Charlemont.)

  Jersey, E.

  Kimberley, E. [Teller.]

  Churchill, L.

  Minto, E

  Conyers, L.

  Morley, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Northbrook, E.

  de Ros, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Dorchester, L.

  Sydney, E.

  Dormer, L.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  Bangor, V.

  Bolingbroke and St. John, V.

  Gerard, L.

  Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

  Canterbury, V.

  1805

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Rivers, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Hampton, L.

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Hatherton, L.

  Houghton, L. [Teller.]

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Howard de Walden, L.

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Inchiquin, L.

  Keane, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Thurlow, L.

  Tollemache, L.

  Kesteven, L.

  Truro, L.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Vernon L.

  Monson, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  Waveney, L.

  Ponson by, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Worlingham, L. (E. Gosford.)

  Ribblesdale, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Cairns, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Ely, L. Bp.

  Exeter, L. Bp.

  Gloucester and Bristol, L. Bp.

  Northumberland, D.

  Richmond, D.

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Somerset, D.

  Lincoln, L. Bp.

  Llandaff, L. Bp.

  Bath, M.

  London, L. Bp.

  Bristol, M.

  Oxford, L. Bp.

  Salisbury, M.

  Salisbury, L. Bp.

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  Amherst, E.

  St. David's, L. Bp.

  Annesley, E.

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Beaconsfield, E.

  Beauchamp, E. [Teller.]

  Airey, L.

  Belmore, E.

  Bagot, L.

  Devon, E.

  Balfour of Burley, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Blachford, L.

  Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

  Dundonald, E.

  Braybrooke, L.

  Effingham, E.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Eldon, E.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Ferrers, E.

  Haddington, E.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Harrowby, E.

  Mansfield, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Coleridge, L.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Crewe, L.

  Powis, E.

  Denman, L.

  Redesdale, E.

  Dinevor, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Ettrick, L. (L. Napier.)

  Selkirk, E.

  Forbes, L.

  Shaftesbury, E. [Teller.]

  Forester, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Strathmore and Kinghorn, E.

  Gordon of Drumearn, L.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Greville, L.

  Hammond, L.

  Bridport, V.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Cranbrook, V.

  Hardinge, V.

  Hatherley, L.

  Hawarden, V.

  Hawke, L.

  Strathallan, V.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Templetown, V.

  Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

  Chester, L. Bp.

  Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

  Chichester, L. Bp.

  1806

  Massy, L.

  Selborne, L.

  Norton, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Raglan, L.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  Windsor, L.

  Sackville, L.

  Winmarleigh, L.

  Saltoun, L,

  Wynford, L.

  Resolved in the Negative; and Bill to be read 2a on this day six months.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock