Commons Sitting of 5 August 1844

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Cirencester, Viscount Villiers.
BILLS. Public. — 1o. Lands Clauses Consolidation; Railway Clauses Consolidation; Companies Clauses Consolidation; Merchant Seamen's Fund.
2o. Roman Catholic Penal Acts Repeal.
3o. and passed:—Charitable Donations and Bequests (Ireland) Transfer of Property.
Private.—Reported.—Duke of Hamilton and Brandon's Estate.
3o. and passed:—Lord Cranstoun's Estate; Morton's Estate; Leeds Vicarage.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. M. J. O'Connell, from Drumbane, against Registration Bill; and from Armagh (2), and Salford, for Repeal of the Union.—By Mr. Spooner, from Birmingham, against Roman Catholic Penal Acts Repeal BUI.—By Mr. Darby, from Hailsham, and Pevensey, against Repeal of the Corn Laws.—By Mr. M. J. O'Connell, from Ireland (160), against Charitable Bequests Bill. — By Captain Taylor, from Bishop and Clergy of Down, Connor, and Dromore, for Extension of Education (Ireland).—By Mr. Bouverie, from Greenock, for adopting Sanatory Regulations in Towns.—By Mr.

1775
M. Philips, and Mr. Spooner, from Manchester, and Bristol, against Insolvent Debtors Bill.—By Mr. Grogan, from South Dublin Union, for Establishment of Lunatic Asylums (Ireland), respecting Report on Workhouses, and for Alteration of Law of Removing Vagrants.

ROMAN CATHOLIC PENAL ACTS BILL.
Sir R. Peelhad to move, that the Bill which had been sent down from the House of Lords for the repeal of the Penal Enactments against the Roman Catholics be now read a second time. He hoped that the House would throw no impediment in the way of passing the Bill, however late the period of the Session at which it was brought under their notice. Since he came into the House he perceived that a Petition had been presented by the hon. Member for Birmingham which he thought it right to notice, because it was founded on an entire misconception of the object and intention of this Bill. The Petitioners stated,—
"That they had heard with sorrow and alarm that a Bill had been brought into the House of Lords for the repeal of certain penal enactments affecting the Roman Catholics; that they apprehended the most serious consequences were likely to result from the repeal of those enactments; that it seemed perfectly monstrous that the Legislature should, only fifteen years after the Roman Catholic Relief Bill had been agreed to, pass an Act repealing all the protective Clauses in virtue of which that Bill had been allowed to become law; and this, too, at a time when circumstances would seem rather to demand the imposition of additional restrictions than the repeal of the few which yet remain."
He (Sir R. Peel) was afraid that the same misapprehension might prevail among other parties, and therefore he wished distinctly to state that this Bill did away with no security whatever which had been taken for the Established Church by the Act passed in 1829; and he thought he could show, by an explanation of the provisions of this Bill, that the petitioners need not view it with that sorrow and alarm which they were disposed to entertain. He should be exceedingly sorry to countenance any false impressions as to the effect of the Act of 1829 for the relief of Her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects. The intention and effect of that Bill was to place Her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects, in respect to civil rights and franchises, upon precisely the same footing as the other subjects of Her Majesty. The Acts which this Bill proposed to repeal were, in fact, mere dead letters,
1776
encumbering, and he must say, from the spirit which pervaded them, discrediting, the Statute Book on which they stood. But they had no practical operation, so far as the Roman Catholic subjects of the Crown were concerned. These could be exempted, or at least were exempted, from the operation of them by the simple taking of an oath, to which Roman Catholics had no objection, and, therefore, he should be very sorry if, by repealing those Statutes, they were at all to weaken the effect of that great Statute of which he had spoken, in the securities it provided for the ecclesiastical institutions of the country. That Act recited in the preamble, that—
"Whereas, by various Acts of Parliament, certain incapacities and disabilities are imposed on the Roman Catholic subjects of Her Majesty which others are not liable to, and whereas it is expedient that such incapacities and disabilities should be henceforth discontinued," &c.
That recital distinctly showed what was the intention and object of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. Subjects of the Crown who professed that faith stood with respect to civil offices and franchise, provided they took the single oath required to be taken by that Act in lieu of the declaration against transubstantiation, and the other oaths of supremacy and allegiance, exactly on the same fooling as members of the Church of England, except with regard to the office of Lord Chancellor and one or two others. They might hold property and enjoy all the other privileges of subjects, without taking any additional oath. With respect to exemption from certain forfeitures and penalties, this was the state of the law. If the Roman Catholic took the oath prescribed by the Act of 1829, he was then, by the express terms of the law, free from all disabilities, incapacities, forfeitures, and penalties, excepting those which applied to the other subjects of Her Majesty, so that he was free from all those which the ancient laws applied to acts done by Roman Catholics. The House of Lords proposed, however, to do away with certain of those ancient Statutes. The effect of them was done away with by the taking of the oath, but the House of Lords proposed that they should be abrogated and effaced from the Statute Book, and his object now was to induce the House to assent to that proposition of the House of Peers. What punishments did those

1777
Statutes impose? One of them enacted that if any man maintained the spiritual authority of the Pope, he should be liable, for the first offence, to the forfeiture of all his goods and chattels—if he had none, to imprisonment for one year; for the second offence, to the penalties of præmunire; and for the third offence, to the penalties of high treason. So that if you administered to the Roman Catholic an oath which implied that he might maintain the spiritual authority of the Pope, because you called upon him to disclaim the civil and temporal authority, and yet there was a law on the Statute Book which said that if he maintained that spiritual authority, in that case, for the third offence, he should be liable to the penalties of high treason. That Statute had received a very wide interpretation in former times, for it was laid down in Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown that "he who, hearing a report of a book written abroad which upheld that opinion, or having perused the book, did afterwards, by discoursing on it, allow it to be good, was brought within the penalties of the Statute." It was also held, according to Hawkins, that if any one convicted or condemned for an offence of this nature, being afterwards demanded by the Judge whether he held the same opinion, answered that he did, he was guilty of high treason, having advisedly maintained the opinion upon a second occasion. Other Statutes provided that if a Roman Catholic did not attend the service of the Church of England once a-week, and if he did not attend Divine Service on the 5th of November, and take the Sacrament on that day, he should be liable to heavy penalties. Another Act said, if he sent his son to be educated in any of the Roman Catholic colleges abroad, and did not recall him, after proclamation made, within six months, he should be liable to the penalties of high treason; and another, that if a man not educated as a Roman Catholic from his infancy should educate his children in the Roman Catholic faith, he should be disabled from holding any office in the Church or State; and that the child so educated, unless, after arriving at years of discretion, he conformed to the Church of England, should also be disabled from holding such office. These enactments were completely at variance with the spirit and intention of the Act passed in 1829. There were other Acts passed in the reign of
1778
Willian III., which provided that if any person should suspect a person of being Roman Catholic living within ten miles of the City of London, he should be at liberty to bring him before two justices, who should administer to him the declaration against transubstantiation and call upon him to take the sacrament; if he refused, he was to be treated as a Popish recusant, and was instantly to be banished to a distance of ten miles from the City of London. Another Act provided that no person being a Popish recusant should be allowed to be absent from his home a greater distance than five miles. If any Roman Catholic should refuse to take the declaration against transubstantiation, and be in possession of a horse of greater value than 5l., two justices might call upon him to deliver up his horses for the use of Her Majesty. He had said enough to give a description of the general character and tenor of these Acts, all which were now inoperative; but he appealed to every man whether it was reasonable to allow any one, who felt so inclined, to invoke the sanguinary spirit of those laws for the purpose of inflicting the penalties. He did not think they were conferring any favour or privilege on the Roman Catholic body by the repeal of the Acts, but they were rescuing the Statute Book from ignominy and disgrace. If any reasonable objection had been stated to the repeal of any of the Acts, such Acts might have been retained; but as no such objection had been made, he conceived the whole might be taken to be of the same tenor and character with those which he had mentioned. He trusted he had shown that the feeling of sorrow and alarm which had been expressed by the petitioners was not called for by this Bill, which would not, in point of fact, repeal any one security existing. He knew it had been said that these laws, though dormant, still constituted some security for the Established Church. He entertained no such opinion. Some considered them to be a sort of outwork of the Church, which might be applicable in time of danger as bulwarks against Roman Catholic aggressions. They were erected, as Bacon had said, of other bad laws, upon the spur of the moment, under circumstances of great pressure, and were not now applicable, when a very different spirit prevailed. At the same time, they were likely to be seized upon by reason or ridicule, and might be

1779
converted into weapons for attacking the Established Church. They were of no other avail, for the Establishment must now be defended by arms of an entirely opposite description to those provided by the Acts in question; its force lay in the reasoning and affectionate attachment of the people. To that Establishment none were more deeply attached than himself, and he felt convinced that in getting rid of these obsolete Acts, they were parting with no one of its defences.
Mr. Haweswished to know, should other obsolete statutes of a similar kind be found on the Statute Book, applicable to the same or to other denominations of Christians, and he had reason to believe that there were such, whether Government would, during the ensuing recess, prepare a measure for their repeal?
Sir R. Peelwas in some doubt whether it would not have been better to adopt the suggestion of a noble Friend of his, and postpone the measure for the purpose of making it more extensive. He believed there were other enactments of a similar nature; but as this Bill had been sent down from the House of Lords, and as it was an indication of the spirit in which the Parliament was prepared to proceed, he hoped the measure would be passed. He very much doubted whether Dissenters were not subject to those Acts which required attendance on Divine Service according to the Church of England, and very possibly to other Acts of the same description. He would not give any pledge on the subject; but if there were any statute which now compelled a conscientious Dissenter from the Church of England, upon a heavy penalty, to attend Divine Service in that Church, he might say that he could see no object whatever in retaining it on the Statute Book.
Mr. Monckton Milnesremarked, that if the Government had been allowed to carry their Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, the greater part of those abuses would have been remedied by this time, but the Clause repealing them had never come under the consideration of the House.
Mr. Spoonersaid, the grounds on which the petitioners deprecated the Bill applied to the manner of its introduction, and the want of prudence by which it was marked. Had they heard the exceedingly clear statement of the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, they would have come to the same conclusion as that to
1780
which he had already come, that the Bill was a good one and ought to pass. They had not, however, had the means of making themselves informed of the real state of the case, and therefore they had petitioned in ignorance. The circumstance that the Bill had not been introduced by a Member of the Government, and that they had advised the postponement of the Bill, had created suspicions which were totally groundless.
The Bill was then read a second time.

CHARITABLE BEQUESTS (IRELAND).
Sir J. Grahammoved that the Charitable Donations and Bequests (Ireland) Bill be read a third time.
Mr. Dillon Brownethought that Government should postpone the Bill to the next Session of Parliament. He had presented a petition from six Roman Catholic Prelates against it, which showed the feelings with which they viewed the measure, and he was fortified by the authority of the man who enjoyed the confidence of the people of Ireland in thinking that the measure would not be beneficial to the Roman Catholics of that country. Though they were glad to be relieved from the surveillance of the Court of Chancery in regard to charitable trusts, they objected to the appointment of an irresponsible and non-judicial Commission to manage them, involving, as they did, considerations connected with the doctrine and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church. The people of Ireland were afraid that no Roman Catholics would be appointed Commissioners, excepting such as would be subservient to the Ministry of the day. The Irish Members had neither given this Bill a manly support nor a manly opposition, and would have to account to their constituents for not having opposed it in a more determined manner. It was the first step towards making the Roman Catholic Church an appendage to the State. He must, therefore, move that the Bill be read a third time on that day three months.
No one seconded the Amendment. Bill read a third time.
On the question that it do pass,
Mr. M. J. O'Connellsaid, he had hesitated to join in the opposition to this Bill, because he felt that if imperfect, it would be amended hereafter. He was bound to express his conviction that when the present heats had subsided, the Bill would be

1781
found a substantial benefit to the people of Ireland, raising the condition of their clergymen, without shackling the influence exercised by them over their flocks. He did not think the apprehensions expressed on the subject were at all borne out by the shape in which the Bill now stood.
Bill passed.

COURT-MARTIAL ON LIEUTENANT GRAY.
Captain Pechellhad seen a Report that a Court-Martial had been held upon Lieutenant Gray for having, while in command of the Brig Bonetta, upon the coast of Africa, searched and detained a vessel under French colours, and that that officer had been convicted by the Court-Martial for having so boarded and detained the vessel, he not having had a warrant from the French Government. He wished to ask the hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for the Admiralty, whether that Report were true, and whether the charges had been made by the Admiralty, by the Foreign Office, or by any Foreign Government?
Mr. S. Herbertstated, that it was perfectly true that this officer had been brought to a Court-Martial for boarding, and subsequently for searching a French vessel, he not being at the time in possession of a warrant from the French Government. The charges had been drawn up by the Admiralty in the usual course of business, and no foreign Government had anything to do with the matter. The principal charge was for disobedience of orders, and the result of the Court-Martial was now before the public.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS—VIZ., LANDS CLAUSES; RAILWAY CLAUSES; COMPANIES CLAUSES.
Mr. Gladstonerose to move for leave to bring in three Bills, notice of which he had given, for the consolidation of the provisions usually introduced into Acts for incorporating Companies for carrying on undertakings of a public nature. The proceeding, was founded generally upon the recommendation of the Select Committee upon Railways, but, at the same time, it went beyond that recommendation, because their functions being confined to Railways, the recommendation they had made that the great mass of the provisions now comprised in Railway Bills should be comprehended within one general and single enactment, had reference to Railroad Bills
1782
only. The Government, however, had thought it advisable to apply the principle to Private Bills of other kinds. The advantages he expected to gain by this proceeding would be these. In the first place there would be a greater degree of certainty and uniformity attached to the general form of the law upon these subjects, which would be rendered more accessible and intelligible to the public when the great mass of provisions now scattered over various Acts were concentrated in a single Bill, and made applicable to all Companies, than it could be now when comprised in so many Local and Personal Statutes. The provisions were not now under the eye of the public, as they would be if comprehended in a general Act as proposed. That was one of the advantages expected to be derived. Upon the other hand, it would be no inconsiderable relief to parties promoting Bills, that they should be enabled to shorten them. He had learned, almost with surprise, from his hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, the heavy charges that were attached to private Bills when the enactments were numerous. The charge for engrossing alone would surprise many hon. Gentlemen, and that did not arise from any extravagance, or from high rates of payment, but from the enormous masses which had to be submitted to this manual process. Of course he did not propose that the Bills should be passed into law during the present Session. The Government, however, thought it was desirable to have them printed during the present Session, so that the attention of the parties, Parliamentary Agents, and others interested in these Bills, might be drawn to them. The advantage of these measures would be that Private Bills, instead of consisting of 300 or 400 Clauses, would be reduced to a moderate number of intelligible ones. He ought to say that, whether difficulties should arise or not in the way of framing the Bills, so as to be available next Session, care must be taken that the private business should on no account be impeded or delayed. He would now state what those Bills contained. The three Bills he proposed to lay on the Table of the House comprised the whole of the Model Bill drawn up by the Committee, as regarded its substantial enactments. But it had been deemed advisable to break up the subject matter of it into three parts, because it had

1783
reference to three classes of undertakings. The first Bill he proposed was a Bill which would apply, when it became a general Act, to all private Bills that might be introduced into the House for the purpose of incorporating Trading Companies. In the second Bill he intended to include all those provisions with respect to Companies not merely seeking to be incorporated, but requiring compulsory powers to purchase and hold lands. This Bill would include Railway, Harbour, Canal, Gas, and Water Bills, which require compulsory powers. With regard to the third Bill, that would be still more restrictive in the range of Private Bills to which it would be applicable. This Bill would specifically correspond with the recommendation of the Railway Committee. It would be applicable in its provisions to Railway Bills, in respect to those features which belonged to them exclusively, and not in common with other Bills for the execution of Public Works. Having described the general purview of those Bills, he had to say that in the first Bill he did not mean to propose anything worth mentioning, except what was already in the Model Bill. In the second Bill he proposed to introduce an enactment which had been frequently recommended to Government, namely, an exceptional provision relative to the compensation for lands by reference to a jury. He proposed that where the value of the land in question was not more than a certain amount, say, for example, 1,000 l., the parties might have the option of settling the question by arbitration. He did not take it from the jury as a matter of course, but it would be optional for either of the parties to remove it from a jury, and refer it to another tribunal which would be less expensive. The proposition had often been made both by Railway Companies and Landed Proprietors, that they should be allowed to submit small valuations to arbitration. He, therefore, proposed to insert in the Bill a proposition to this effect. In the third Bill he proposed to add a second proposition, giving a discretionary power to the Government and the Board of Trade, of allowing certain deviations in engineering works from the prescribed models, in cases where it was proved this could be done with increased advantage to the public, and without any detriment to private rights. Another very important matter he proposed to include, was a general
1784
provision with regard to what was called the equal rates Clause. At present there was not a perfect uniformity of privilege as between the different Railway Companies as to the power of varying their charges. Some Companies had no power of varying the rates of their fares at all; others had the power to do so, provided the rate was made uniform throughout the whole of the Company's line. That Clause was now subject to some ambiguity. They could not devise a Clause that should exactly define the rate in all cases, but it was obviously a subject of great importance and great difficulty. Sometimes it was for the interest of the public that there should be a power of varying the rates. At present, in some cases it might be varied, but only to a rate that should be equal and uniform all along the line, though it might be more advantageous to have a lower rate along one part of the line than along another. He therefore proposed to insert a Clause giving power to make these variations with those exceptions and reservations in cases which experience had shown ought to be so limited. The power as it existed had sometimes been exercised in a manner oppressive to the public, especially as regarded carriers. He proposed to insert in this general Bill, powers of varying the charge, subject to exceptions and restrictions in all cases in which it was practicable to see, from present experience, that such variations should be limited. He proposed, for example, that any Railroad Company acting under this Act should not be able to vary charges simply in respect to the quantity of goods conveyed. Again, he proposed that there should be no power to vary charges upon goods in respect of any difference in the manner of conveying those goods beyond the line of the Company itself. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in a "Bill for consolidating in one Act certain provisions usually inserted in Acts of Parliament with respect to the constitution of incorporated Companies for carrying on undertakings of a public nature."
Leave given.
Leave also given to bring in a Bill for consolidating in one Act certain provisions usually inserted in Acts of Parliament, authorising the taking of land for undertakings of a public nature.
And also to bring in a Bill for consolidating in one Act certain provisions usually

1785
inserted in Acts of Parliament authorising the making of Railways.

MERCHANT SEAMEN'S FUND.
House in Committee on the Merchant Seamen's Fund Acts, when,
Mr. Gladstonerose to move a resolution that the Chairman be directed to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the Relief and Support, in certain cases, of Merchant Seamen, their Widows and Children. The Bill which he wished to bring in, affected the interests and prospects of a class of men which that House, as well as the whole country, regarded with feelings of great interest—he meant the Merchant Seamen of this country, a class who were the least disposed to complain. They were, it was true, dissatisfied with the state of the Seamen's Fund, but his only surprise was, that they were not a hundred times more dissatisfied. They did not object to the compulsory payment of a tax out of their wages, but they wished to see the fund raised by that means placed on a more satisfactory footing. Although the Report of the Committee on this subject had not yet been laid on the Table of the House, he hoped the House would give him so much of their confidence as to allow him to introduce a Bill which should embrace those alterations in the law that were deemed necessary, in order that they might be taken into consideration, both by hon. Members of the House, and by the parties interested during the space of time that would elapse between this and the ensuing Session. The right hon. Gentleman stated the provisions of the Bill, and concluded by moving his Resolution.
Mr. Laboucherehad heard the statement with satisfaction, and hoped that in the next Session the important question would be finally settled. He earnestly recommended the right hon. Gentleman during the recess to turn his attention to another question connected with the marine requiring legislation: he alluded to pilotage dues. He admitted that the question was involved in difficulties, not merely from its complication, but from the adverse interests concerned; but he trusted that the sagacity of the right hon. Gentleman would overcome the first, and that his power and influence would reconcile the last. If this object were accomplished an important benefit would be conferred
1786
on the shipping and commercial interests.
Resolution agreed to. House resumed, Report received, and Bill ordered to be brought in.
The House adjourned at seven o'clock.