said, he would beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board, whether any intention is entertained of making an alteration in the law as regards the power of overseers, in ordering medical relief to persons not in the workhouse.

said, that under the Poor Law Amendment Act the overseer was entitled, in cases of urgent necessity, to give an order for medical relief to such persons as he thought required it. A case of the kind alluded to by the hon. Gentleman had occurred in the Somersetshire Union, but afterwards the guardians, not believing it to be a case of urgent necessity, refused to allow such relief. The medical officer, in consequence, brought an action against the overseer in the County Court, and the Judge decided that the overseer was not personally liable. As far as he (Mr. Bouverie) had the means of judging, that decision was right in point of law, nor had the Poor Law Board (though they had offered some advice to the guardians in the particular case refessed to) any intention of altering the general law in that respect. Certainly medical officers of unions seemed exposed to some hardships in such a case, but, at the same time, those gentlemen had the power of protecting themselves, because they could judge whether the case which they were called upon to attend was one of urgent necessity, and if it was not they could decline to act upon the order of the overseer. Medical officers, however, should he very careful in exercising their discretion in such instances, because if, after all, the case turned out to be one of urgent necessity, they would be held responsible.

said, he wished to ask what steps had been taken to obtain the decision of the law officers of the Crown for England, Ireland, and Scotland, on the subject of the Bill, according to the undertaking entered into?

said, the undertaking was not entered into, because the conditions under which it was offered had not been accepted. The Bill was approved of by the law officers of the Crown generally; but they had had no consultation since the Bill was last in Committee for the purpose of considering the question, as such a proceeding was unnecessary with regard to a measure to the general provisions of which they had already acceded.

said, his recollection of the facts was somewhat different from that of the Lord Advocate. He clearly understood that the Bill was to be considered by the law officers of the Crown of the three countries; and that their decision was to be communicated to the Committee. The Bill was not wanted in Ireland; and he (Colonel French) could see no advantage in wasting another day at this period of the Session, in an attempt to force it upon that country; especially as every Irish legal Member was inevitably absent on professional business. He thought it desirable to postpone the Bill for this Session, as it could not pass; and seeing that there were thirty-five Orders of the Day upon the paper, he should move that the Chairman report progress.

observed, that he approved the principle of the Bill, and had supported it throughout. He could not help thinking, however, that the House had devoted as much time to its discussion as was due to its importance, or as was fair to other hon. Members whose measures were now pending. If there had been any reasonable chance of the Bill passing this Session, he might have continued to support it; but looking at the determined opposition offered to its progress, he thought no such chance existed, and he should therefore vote in favour of reporting progress.

said, that as an Irish Member, he wished to express his opinion that the conduct of the hon. and learned Member who had charge of the Bill was not what it ought to be. There was a strong feeling against the Bill amongst the legal and commercial classes in Ireland, and consequently, the Irish Members were prepared to take all the taunts and do everything—[An hon. MEMBER: Pay?]—to oppose its passage for this Session. He therefore would suggest, that the hon. Member who had introduced it should submit it to the Lord Advocate for Scotland, the Attorney General for England, and the Attorney General for Ireland, to be by them considered and amended; then, if the hon. and learned Member would introduce it in an amended form next Session, he (Mr. Maguire) would support it: otherwise, he was prepared to occupy the attention of the Committe for the rest of the day, if necessary. Under the present circumstances, however, he should move that the Chairman do leave the chair.

said, he regretted that the Irish Members were so unanimously opposed to this measure, because he did not see how it affected Irishmen any more than Englishmen or Scotchmen. As there certainly was no prospect of passing it, however, during this Session, he suggested to his hon. and learned Friend that he should not further proceed with it at present, although he must express his regret that an opposition which, so far as he knew, had never been based on any intelligible principle, should have been successful in opposing the progress of the Bill.

said, that the opposition to this Bill was by no means confined to Irish Members; for many Englishmen objected to it on the ground that, under it, judgments obtained in the Scotch courts, by a procedure of which no one knew anything, might be entered in the courts of London, and would come into as full force as if they had been obtained by a procedure subject to all the guards and precautions which the English law threw round it. He (Mr. Spooner) had heard nothing to remove his objections, and, he therefore, hoped that the Bill would he postponed.

said, Irish merchants and men of business were informed, on the first law authority in Ireland and England, that fraudulent judgments might he obtained under the Bill, and therefore he should oppose the measure until he was satisfied on that point. That could be done only by referring the Bill to the law officers of the Crown for the three countries.

said, that although he had hitherto been consistent in supporting the Bill, he thought, considering the period of the Session, that it ought to be withdrawn for the present. He regarded the Bill as a step in the right direction, and he thought that if the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd) magnanimously consented to withdraw it at this time, he ought to have an assurance from the Government that they would introduce it in an amended form as a Government measure next Session. He supported the Bill because it tended to produce uniformity in the law, and to prevent the anomaly of having one law for England, another for Ireland, and another for Scotland, when all were under the same Imperial Government. At the same time he must observe that if it were in the power of the hon. Members for Ireland to defeat this Bill by factious opposition, it would be equally in the power of any other hon. Members to oppose any other measure, and thus a stop might be put to all legislation. He thought the question should he decided by the balance of arguments and votes, and not by such threats as the hon. Member for Dun-garvan (Mr. Maguire) used.

denied that he had used any threat. He had merely stated a fact, and if a fact was a threat, why perhaps he had made use of a threat. It was all very well to say that the question should be decided by argment, but when the bell rang for a division, hon. Members flocked into the House, and voted without hearing any arguments, or even knowing what the question was.

said, that, after the appeal which had been made to him by the Lord Advocate and by other hon. Members, he thought that he should best discharge his duty by not further pressing the Bill during the present Session. He must observe, however, that the Bill as it now stood had received the approval of all the law officers of the Crown, that it had now been proceeded with as far as the 9th clause, and that not a single material Amendment had been made in the framework or the phraseology of the measure. He saw no reason why, the subject which the Bill contemplated should not be undertaken by a private Member, and he gave notice that next Session he should again address himself to it, and should re-introduce a similar measure upon the subject.

said, that the Irish Members were all but unanimous in their opposition to this Bill. He thought that they were perfectly justified in the course which he and others had pursued.

said, he rose to move as an Amendment, on behalf of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins), that the Bill be read a second time this day three months. He thought that the Bill went too far, and was calculated to introduce into families a great deal of discomfort and dissension. There was no greater source of dissension in married life than the existence of separate property, and this measure would add to those dissensions. It was not his intention, however, to enter into a detail of the difficulties which would be likely to arise under the Bill if it became law, because they were of too delicate a nature to be canvassed in that House; but he might state his belief that there were very few mothers of families, having the control of property which they ought to devote to the benefit of the whole of their children alike, who would have nerve and composure enough to refuse to grant pecuniary aid to any one of their children—say their firstborn—who might stand in need of such assistance. Again, by the Bill as it stood, a married woman becoming possessed of property after marriage had the power of alienating that property and of dealing with it as she pleased. She might, with the best intentions, lay it out, without consulting her husband, in some worthless railway shares or in some unsound speculation, and the husband might find that the whole of that property, to which he had looked, perhaps, for the maintenance of himself during his lifetime, and for the benefit of his children afterwards, had been swept away. He believed that the Bill had been introduced to meet an exceptional class of cases, which ought to be dealt with separately—such as where a wife who lived apart from her husband entered upon some business by herself, and there from acquired property, which in the present state of the law the husband could take possession of. He did not attempt to defend that state of things, but he did not consider that such cases belonged to society at large; and he thought that, as a general measure, the Bill was uncalled for. Of course he could not be expected to enter into the legal and technical objections to the measure, but in the absence of his hon. and learned friend he had no hesitation in moving, as an Amendment, that it be read a second time this day three months.

whose name was on the back of the Bill, stated that he regarded the question far more as a social than as a legal one. The position of married women in this country was peculiar in this respect, that there existed with regard to them a law, which applied to all married women alike, unless they entered into an express contract for the purpose of modifying or avoiding that law. The object of the Bill, then, was to make that the law for all classes, which by custom it had become for the wealthy classes, for it very rarely happened that on the marriage of a woman possessing property her property was not made the subject of the most careful arrangement. This had produced the most striking conflict between the common law and equity on this matter; for while the former declared that the wife could hold no property, yet equity allowed her to hold property settled on her at the time of the marriage, and to bequeath it according to the terms of the settlement. Again, by the common law, the husband had a right to the earnings of his wife; but it was held in equity that the wife had an absolute right to all savings arising from the settled property. It was said that the cases quoted in support of a Bill like the present were peculiar cases, but he maintained that they were such as might happen at any time. Take the two cases mentioned by the hon. Member for Suffolk (Mr. Waddington). One was the case of a lady possessing considerable property who married a man by whom she was treated with great cruelty; she was deserted, and left almost penniless by him. The man died soon after, and then she discovered to her horror that she was left entirely penniless, all her property being bequeathed by her husband to an illegitimate son of his. Another case was that of a woman whose husband had committed a brutal assault on her, for which he was condemned by a court of law. In the meantime, her father dying, a considerable portion of property devolved to her. That property under the law went to the husband, and he being a felon, escheated to the Crown. Nothing but some such alteration in the law as was proposed by the present Bill could meet that state of things. The relations between husband and wife in France, with regard to property, were regulated either by the regime dotal, or the communauté de biens; the first resembled the marriage settlement in this country, and the latter, which was the practice followed in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, established the possession of property by husband and wife in common, no portion of that property being capable of alienation without the consent of both parties. On sufficient grounds, however, either party could apply for a separation de biens, and then the property of the wife would be secured to herself. Perhaps it might be said that this would he a more desirable state of the law than that which was now proposed to be enacted, but he did not think so, as it was not applicable to the state of domestic life in this country, and might tend to familiarize the people to an objectionable degree with the idea of separation between man and wife. At the same time, he believed that the rejection of a measure like the present would lead to the adoption of such a state of things as he had just described. It might be said that at this late period of the Session it would not be advisable to proceed with the consideration of the present Bill, particularly as another Bill, with some similar provisions, was likely soon to come under discussion. That other measure, however, was connected with the establishment of a new Court of Divorce; and as that Bill might not be carried in that House, he trusted that the second reading of the present measure would be assented to, so that it might go up to the other House and receive the consideration of the law Lords. Lord Brougham had placed a reform of the law in respect to this subject on a level with the abolition of the slave trade and other great measures of that kind, and those who talked of the chance of domestic peace being disturbed by such an enactment as the present should bear in mind that they would disturb that domestic peace much more by leaving the law as it stood. The present condition of married women was, in the respects to which the Bill referred, alien to our habits and feelings, and it would he ungenerous and unmanly not to attempt to improve it. He hoped, therefore, that his hon. Friend on the Treasury bench would approve of the measure.

said, he could not make a very favourable response to the appeal of his hon. Friend. It was more a question for the law officers of the Crown than himself. But as he understood from the hon. and learned Member for Devonport (Sir E. Perry) that he had communicated with the Attorney General on the subject of the present Bill, and that that law officer approved it, though he was desirous of introducing some extensive modifications into the measure, he (Mr. Massey) should support the second reading. There was a distinction in the mode in which the property of married women was treated by courts of common law and courts of equity, and as there was that conflict of jurisdiction, it might well be said that the matter was not at present in a satisfactory state. Whether the provisions of the Bill were in accordance with the state of the law recognized by the courts of equity and with the habits of society in this country was another question. Some of those provisions appeared to stand in need of careful revision, or they might disturb the whole of the relations of married life, and revolutionize all the principles which applied to the rights of property in this country. He admitted the great hardship which was suffered by a woman in not having, when separated from a profligate husband, the power of applying the proceeds of her own industry to her own subsistence or to the subsistence of her children. He did not believe that it was not possible for the Legislature to find a remedy for that evil, but the effect of the fourth clause of the Bill relating to the earnings of a wife in separate trade would be to sot every creditor at defiance, and to drive the estate of husband and wife into the Court of Chancery. When he saw one particular and known grievance dealt with in a manner so loose and unsatisfactory, he could not give his assent to the proposed second reading, without the qualification that the Bill required the most careful consideration. He believed that such a Bill must undergo the careful revision of a Committee upstairs, composed of lawyers and others in whose judgment the House was likely to place confidence. The existing state of things called for legislation, but it must be cautious legislation, and he feared that at the present advanced state of the Session the hon. and learned Gentleman would scarcely be able to induce a sufficient number of hon. Gentlemen to consent to act as a Committee to consider the Bill. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman would partly have attained his object by ventilating the question, and next year, whether taken up by him or any other hon. Member, it would be felt to deserve the attentive consideration of Parliament.

said, the Bill required great care, because there were nice legal difficulties to be provided against. At the same time, no greater or more pressing evil existed than the position of married women in this country. If the Bill were sent before a Select Committee, he hoped a remedy might be found.

said, he trusted that the Bill would be withdrawn altogether. He thought the House was not prepared to adopt the principle laid down in the very first clause of the measure, which began by saying that a married woman should be capable of being sued as if she were a femme sole, without the slightest reservation that she should be sued only for matters arising under this Bill. That was a principle the House could not sanction even so far as to pass the second reading of the Bill. Again it was provided that no marriage solemnized after the passing of the Bill should make any change whatever in the property possessed either by the husband or the wife except in so far as it should be specified in any settlement made before marriage. How many marriages, he should like to know, in the middle classes took place in which settlements were not made? The higher classes would be exempted from the operation of this Bill, but what would be its effect on the lower classes? The moment a married woman acquired property after marriage the whole of the existing law in respect to such property would be suspended. He was prepared for some change in the law; and if the Bill were confined to the single object of protecting the wife's property against the husband, in cases where the wife was separated by decree of a court or by agreement, so that she might possess the means of livelihood for herself and family, he should not object to it, but he could not consent to send to a Committee upstairs a Bill like the present containing unsound and objectionable principles.

said, he found the Bill did not extend to Ireland. He thought, however, that if such a measure passed it ought to extend to all the three kingdoms. If an Irishwoman were married to an Englishman she would stand in a very different position under the Bill from her sister, who might have married an Irishman. Such marriages were very frequent, and the more so the better for the interests of the kingdom.

said, he had no objection to adopt that suggestion in Committee, but, as the Government assented to the second reading of the Bill, he could not follow the advice of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner), and withdraw the Bill. The Bill did not deal with an exclusively legal question, but with a general principle, of which any hon. Member might judge. That principle, however, was not to be found, as the hon. Member conceived, in the first clause or in a word of a clause, but in the preamble, which declared that the law of property, with respect to married women, was unjust in principle and grievous in operation, and ought to be altered. The first clause, to which the hon. Member objected, was intended to give to all married women the same rights as those only possessed now who had settlements. The common law of the land gave the whole of the property of the wife, whether acquired before or after marriage, to the husband. He contended that that principle was unsound, and that it behoved that House to amend it. He had not heard any objection of validity urged to the Bill. The hon. Under Secretary for the Home Department had objected to the fourth clause, respecting the earnings of a wife in separate trade; but the hon. Gentleman was not, perhaps, aware that in the City of London such a usage existed. A married woman living with her husband, but carrying on a separate trade, was there entitled by law to all the profits of that trade, and might be made bankrupt. That law had existed from time immemorial, and worked well. The objections which had been urged to the Bill were objections of detail, and he should be most willing to take them into consideration. The Bill was the result of years of attention to the subject by men of the highest learning, and had been approved by the Government draughtsmen; and, if it were now read a second time, he would readily adopt the suggestion of the Under Secretary for the Home Department to refer the Bill to a Select Committee—a course which he proposed some weeks ago to the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins), but which was rejected by him. The Attorney General for Ireland assented to his proposal that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee; and if the Government would give a pledge that that course should be adopted, he (Sir E. Perry) would not press the Bill this Session. He could not, however, consent to withdraw the Bill immediately, and for this reason: in a few days a very important measure, the Divorce Bill, would be brought under the consideration of the House. During the discussion which occurred with reference to that measure in another place, several clauses had been introduced with the object of protecting the interest of married women. It was very probable that the Divorce Bill would encounter great opposition in that House; and he thought it most desirable, if that Bill should be thrown out, that some of the clauses in the present measure should be discussed at a morning sitting, in order that the nature of the objections entertained to them might be clearly understood. The subject might then be referred to a Select Committee; and he hoped that before the end of the next Session of Parliament, those blots which now rendered the law of England on this subject a scandal might be removed. The course proposed by this Bill had been sanctioned by the Roman lawyers, who were masters of jurisprudence, and by our brethren in the United States, who had so far amended the common law of England.

said, he would recommend the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Y. Buller) to withdraw his Amendment. He thought many of the clauses would operate beneficially, and he hoped the Bill would be read a second time and go to a Select Committee, so that next Session it might be presented to the House in such a form that they would be enabled to give it their sanction.

said, he understood it was intended to propose the extension of the measure to Ireland, and he could, therefore, only assent to the second reading of the Bill under protest. He did not regard this Bill as one calculated to amend the law, but to effect a complete revolution in the law, which would disturb all the relations of husband and wife. He could not help saying that it was, in his opinion, a most rashly constructed measure, and one which was likely to lead to very mischievous consequences. He was far from maintaining that the law affecting husband and wife did not require amendment, but he thought it was a most dangerous experiment to attempt such a change as would be effected by this measure. The Bill would enable a married woman to contract what debts she pleased; to bind herself personally; to enter into litigation; to sue and be sued, without the knowledge or control of a husband or trustee; and the consequence might be, that a gentleman who was strongly attached to an extravagant wife might find her arrested at his dinner-table in respect of transactions of which he had no cognizance whatever. It had been said that married women were now liable to be sued. If a married woman was possessed of property settled to her sole and separate use which the husband could not touch, she was not liable to be sued; but if she entered into engagements under circumstances which the law considered pro tanto an appointment of her property, proceedings might be taken in Equity for the application of the property to the discharge of her liabilities. He thought this Bill would, in fact, afford the means of effecting a summary divorce between husband and wife. He would gladly assist his hon. and learned Friend in endeavouring in Committee to amend the law relating to husband and wife, but if this Bill were to be read a second time, he must enter his protest against its principle, which he regarded as far too large, and its details, which he thought would be found to operate most injuriously.

said, his hon. and learned Friend who last addressed the House had spoken of this Bill as an experiment, but he must be aware that its principle had been adopted in all those countries which were subject to the Roman law. The object of the Bill was to continue the wife as a legal entity after her marriage, whereas by the present law of England her marriage merged her existence in that of her husband. She could not acquire property, although she might contract debts; and it frequently happened, especially among the poorer classes, that when the wife of a profligate husband, who had deserted her, succeeded to property, the drunken rascal came in and seized everything she had acquired. He (Mr. Roebuck), therefore, hailed this endeavour to remedy such a disgraceful state of the law with the greatest satisfaction, and he hoped the House would assent to the second reading of the Bill.

said, if he required any inducement to vote against the Bill it was afforded by the statement of his hon. and learned Friend that he intended in Committee to propose the extension of its provisions to Ireland. He was far from desiring the application of the measure to Ireland, and on looking over the Bill, the clause which struck him as least open to objection was that which provided that the measure should not extend to Ireland. He did not oppose the Bill because he considered that the law affecting husband and wife was not capable of very great improvement, but because he believed such improvements would not be effected by this measure, which would, on the contrary, have a tendency to interrupt and destroy the intimate and confidential relations which ought to exist between husband and wife.

said, if he correctly understood that the hon. and learned Member for Devonport (Sir E. Perry) merely proposed to read the Bill a second time, and then to abandon it for the present Session, he was ready to withdraw his Amendment.

said, that he did not entertain the slightest expectation of passing the Bill this Session; but if it should be read a second time, he hoped that, in the event of the Divorce Bill being thrown out, the House would consent to discuss, at a morning sitting, the principles embodied in this measure.

intimated that, under the circumstances, he felt it his duty to press the Amendment.

said, he wished to take that opportunity of explaining the objects of the Bill, which, he feared, were not sufficiently understood. The object was to amend the Act 6 & 7 Vict., c. 106, by which the buildings occupied by scientific and literary societies were exempted from local rates; in consequence, however, of the narrow construction put on that statute by the courts of law, the intentions of its framers had been defeated, and its present effect was that only wealthy societies formed by the higher classes had obtained any benefit from it. All the popular institutions founded by the spontaneous exertions of the people for their own instruction and improvement, such as mechanics' institutes, derived no benefit from it, and were not exempted from the payment of local rates. It was to remove this anomaly that, at the request of the Society of Arts, he had taken charge of this Bill. He admitted it might be better if no such exemption at all was allowed, but so long as the principle of exemption was admitted, no bodies were better entitled to it than those which were devoted to the education of the people. It had been objected that if the Bill passed every club would be exempted from payment of rates; but the Bill was confined to societies established for scientific, literary, and educational purposes, and no club came within that description.

said, he rose to move the omission of the words "science" and "literature," as he thought that the exemption of institutions devoted to such purposes from local rates would, in towns where those rates were extremely heavy, increase the burden of taxation thrown upon hard-working mechanics and artisans. He was desirous of limiting the exemption to institutions established for strictly educational purposes.

said, the objections of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) ought to have been urged against the old Bill, fourteen years ago. There was in these matters a Statute of Limitations in reason, if not in law.

said, he objected to the clause on the ground that they had no right to tax parishes for the advantage of particular institutions. In Southwark, which he represented, there were a great number of literary institutions, schools, and other places for educational purposes, with which the parish in which they were situated had no more to do than any parish on the other side of the water. The parishes in Southwark were poor, and it was most unjust to take this money out of the rates to support institutions with which they had nothing whatever to do. It would he a very different thing if the money came out of the general funds of the country, but they had no right to exempt them from all the borough rates. The principle of the Bill was bad in itself, and the whole effect of it would be injurious. They might as well go to the parish and ask them to pay for the gas they consumed. He was happy to afford assistance to such institutions, but he did not think this was the proper way in which to do it. He should therefore support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Warwickshire, as it tended to narrow the effect of the clause.

said, that he thought it would be hard on the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Hutt), after the House had affirmed the principle of the Bill, to emasculate it in the way which the Amendment proposed to do. He agreed that it was undesirable to carry these exemptions from rating further than they had already gone, but the Committee would bear in mind that the exemption sought to be established by this Bill was one which already existed in some cases, and that this was only an attempt to apply that exemption to analogous institutions which it was doubtful whether the existing law intended to embrace. The real grievance was that Mr. Tidd Pratt certified all kinds of societies indiscriminately, receiving his guinea, and the ratepayers were exceedingly dissatisfied. Applications had in consequence been made to the Court of Queen's Bench, and the result was that in many cases the decisions of Mr. Tidd Pratt had been reversed. The friends of the institutions felt aggrieved that those decisions had not been final, and now wished Parliament to carry out their views. After the view which had been adopted by the House, he thought that the Bill ought not to be defeated by a side-wind.

said, that all the arguments on their side were in favour of education, and what he wanted was, that the dilettanti portion of science and literature should be left out.

observed, that he thought that educational institutions were more entitled to exemption than scientific and literary institutions; but he was afraid that if the Amendment passed, many of the latter, which were in effect educational establishments, would be deprived of the benefit of exemption; he referred especially to mechanics' institutions, and other societies of a similar character. He trusted the hon. Member for North Warwickshire would withdraw his Amendment, the tendency of which would be, not only to re-impose on the wealthier societies a burden from which they had been exempt, but also to fix the same burden on mechanics' institutions.

said, he should support the clause as it stood, however anomalous it might be to include in it science and literature with purely educational establishments, for he contended that it was the duty of Parliament, and of all who wished to see the education of the people promoted, rather to stretch a point on the side of mercy and generosity than to seek to impose harsh and unnecessary restrictions on the enfranchisement and development of institutions and societies of the kind contemplated by this Bill. He wished the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had seen, as he had recently done, well-dressed mechanics visiting the literary and scientific institutions of Manchester and Salford. He would remind the Committee that with the divided opinions of the country on religious subjects a national system of education was impossible; and, therefore, it was desirable to fill up the existing gap as well as they could.

remarked, that he considered that the Bill was simply a supplementary measure to an existing Act of Parliament, and was only meant to carry out the original intention of that Act on a point which had been ambiguously expressed. He should, therefore, support the clause as it stood.

said, that he considered that where a building was erected and an institution formed for the exclusive use of a particular parish, it had a good ground to claim exemption from rating; but where institutions were formed for the benefit of others besides the parishioners they had no claim to be exempted. The whole question turned upon that point, and the whole difficulty had arisen from that principle having been overlooked by the courts of law; if, therefore, the other points were got rid of he should take the sense of the House on the expediency of exempting those institutions only which were for the benefit of the parish. As the Bill stood, the old Rugby School would be exempt from rating, though it was designed solely for the benefit of the sons of the wealthy.

said, he could not consent to such a proposition, as much difficulty would arise in the case of schools and institutions established for distinct sects in the same parish.

said, there had been conflicting decisions as to what literary and scientific institutions really were, but this Bill would set the matter entirely at rest. He believed that mechanics' institutions throughout the country were borne down by these difficulties, but that this Bill would remove those difficulties, and thus confer great benefits upon the working classes. He denied that it would apply to such an institution as Rugby School, for it would he a complete perversion of terms to call that school a literary and scientific society.

asked if it was seriously intended to make the exemption for a building from parochial rates, dependent on keeping out any individual who was not of the parish. A clergyman drew a good deal from the parish; but would there be sense in making him forfeit it, if an outside barbarian, an extra parishioner, was found attendant on his ministry? Would it not be much better, that twenty neighbouring parishes should have twenty scientific institutions, and each allow free ingress to the others?

said, that a general desire had been expressed in the Committee to promote the cause of education. They had seen the establishment in this country by voluntary efforts of many valuable institutions, and he was of opinion that they ought to give them all the support which could be legitimately bestowed on them. They all knew that there was no period of greater moral danger than that which came between childhood and manhood, and mechanics' institutions were precisely adapted to provide for that case. That which contributed to the improvement and advancement of the working classes was the truest economy for the whole community; and, therefore, he believed that allowing the exemption of rates in this case, would ultimately tend to diminish the rates which the metropolitan Members seemed so anxious to protect.

said, he thought that the opponents of the measure would be few and far between if it was solely directed to the improvement of education. But it stretched much further, and was rendered, by the looseness of its phraseology, dangerous to the very institutions which it was intended to benefit. The word "art" was a very broad term. Drawing was an art. Were they to afford the proposed boon to drawing academies? He thought there were plenty of those establishments in London already, without any encouragement by Act of Parliament. It was difficult, indeed, to say what the term "arts" would take in. He should support the Amendment.

said, that he should most certainly take the opinion of the Committee on the subject of leaving out these two words, the more especially as there was an intention on the part of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) to move the omission of the word "education," so that all their labours would be in vain.

believed that extremely little benefit had arisen to any institution whatever by granting these exemptions. Nothing was calculated to create a greater feeling of illiberality to such institutions than granting them particular exemptions from taxes, while in nine cases out of ten the real benefit was received by the landlords of the houses in which they were located, who made the exemption of taxes a reason why an addition should be made to the rent. There was no justice in the present state of the law in reference to this matter, and he was satisfied not only of the injustice of exemptions as a general rule, but that they did no good to the institutions. Hon. Gentlemen argued the question as if the opponents of the Bill were the enemies of education, whereas the contrary was the fact. Believing that they would fail to accomplish the object sought by this clause, he should vote for the Amendment.

said, he objected on principle to the subsidizing of these institutions by Parliament against the wishes of the parishes themselves. There was a mechanics' institution in the town he represented, of which he was president, which was exempted from local rates; but that was by the wish of the inhabitants, and it worked extremely well. He disliked a compulsory exemption, however, as it tended to render these societies unpopular.

said, he should move the omission of the word "education" in the 14th line of the same clause. He would not hare objected to exempt schools for the poor, but the word "education" was so general that it would exempt establishments of a very different kind.

remarked, that he thought that the reasoning of the right hon. Gentleman went rather to the extension of the area embraced by the Bill than to its restriction.

said, the object of the Bill was to overrule certain decisions of the Court of Queen's Bench. What was meant by "science," or "literature," or "education," or "art"? Would the word "art" include rope-dancing? The Judges would be placed under great difficulty in construing such words. It would be better to abolish all exemptions whatever. The societies spent in contesting their liability far more than the amount of the rates which could be claimed. He thought that while hospitals, churches, and other public buildings, were rated for the support of the poor, institutions like those comprised in this Bill ought also to be rated.

said, he should support the principle of the Bill, as being already known to the law. He believed that the courts of law would so construe the clause as to avoid the difficulties which had been suggested by different hon. Members. With regard to the particular Amendment under consideration, it appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) ought, if he followed the just conclusion to be drawn from the observations with which he had introduced the Amendment, to give his support to the introduction of the word education.

suggested, that instead of the word "education," the words "places of instruction for the poor" should be inserted.

said, he should have been very willing to exempt such schools, but he was told it was impossible to bring them under the operation, of this Bill, which contemplated societies having rules established for their management.

then moved to insert the word "fine" before the word "art." The decisions of the Court of Queen's Bench had brought the law into a clear and intelligible state, and this clause without the Amendment would confuse it.

opposed the Motion, on the ground that while it would exempt from the payment of rates galleries of painting and statuary, it would include institutions established for teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic, and for instructing the people in the art of chemistry and all branches of knowledge which might be illustrated by experiments.

said, he should support the Amendment. He had imagined the meaning of the clause to be in accordance with it, and that the insertion was unnecessary. But he now found that the words were intended to have a wider scope, and without the word "fine" the law would be evaded.

said, that the great object was to extend the study of the fine arts to art as applied to workmen. They wanted fine arts extended downwards.

then proposed to insert the words "or elementary instruction." Such schools had an equal claim to exemption as any institution exempted by the Bill.

opposed the Amendment. The Committee had decided that exemptions should not be carried further than they were carried already.

also opposed the Amendment.

said, he should move the addition of the word "exclusively" after the word "arts." As the clause stood, a large and exclusive luxurious building might be exempted by being associated with rooms devoted to the fine arts. There must be some limitation. Another Amendment proposed, in line 14 after the word "Arts," to insert the word "exclusively."

opposed the Amendment as unnecessary. The law already disqualified buildings of the kind alluded to. What the Judges would have to consider, would be the final object of the institutions which it was sought to exempt. They ought not to prevent their giving a cup of tea for the comfort of the members.

said, he also opposed the Amendment. Surely it was not intended to do nothing for institutions which might be open only one day in the week, or one hour in the day. These were the very institutions of the poor; and if the House was sincere in its desire to promote such, some way would be found to give them the advantage of this Bill.

said, that he also was in favour of some limitation. The Judges could not lay down a precise law, and it was impossible to say where they were to stop.

said, that the object of the Society of Arts, from which this Bill proceeded, was to get rid of the word "exclusive," because they found they could not extend the object of their institution under the actual law. The spirit of the proposed Bill would prevent any abuse.

observed, that he hoped the House would not assent to an Amendment, the effect of which would be to exclude mechanics' institutes from the advantages of the Bill. If hon. Gentlemen objected to those institutions, or were opposed to the spread of education by such means, they should say so in terms. He must also deprecate these fine-drawn distinctions as being at variance with the principle established by repeated decisions of that House.

remarked, that he wished to know whether, if the Amendment should be carried, the taking of a newspaper by a mechanics' institute would exclude it from the operation of the Bill?

said, he thought it was unfair that those who objected to the form of this Bill, should be denounced as objecting to the spread of education. The Amendment was intended only to place the matter in the same position as it was in at present. Without the Amendment the clause would only give rise to incipient litigation. With the Amendment there would be no difficulty, as the law had been already clearly laid down by the Judges.

said, after the decision of the Committee, which entirely changed the object of the measure, he did not think it would be of any use to proceed farther, and he therefore should move, that the Chairman report progress.

, before moving that the Order for the Committee upon this Bill be discharged, wished to say a few words in explanation. After the House had assented to the second reading of the Bill, it became the duty of those who were charged with the conduct of it, to consider whether there was any prospect of being able to pass it during the present Session. It appeared to them that it would be useless to proceed at present. He wished, however, to call the attention of the Government to this important and difficult subject, and as the House had by a considerable majority sanctioned the measure he had introduced, he thought it would be the duty of the Government to bring in a Bill based upon the same principles. Should they do so, he undertook to give it his most earnest support; but if they should not do so, or should seek to legislate in the spirit of their recent Bill, he should offer his most strenuous opposition. With these remarks, he should now move, that the Order for the Committee be discharged.