HC Deb 17 August 1894 vol 28 cc1482-7

Bill, as amended, considered.

* SIR F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

said, he desired to omit from "Section 10" to "Act" in the Schedule, page 15, line 52. It was his wish to move one or two Amendments, and he thought he need scarcely apologise, because the delay which the Government had afforded him bad been made use of by themselves, and they had themselves discovered defects in their own Bill. The Bill which they were now dealing with altered two previous Statute Law Revision Acts, and he thought these circumstances clearly proved that the delay had not been without benefit. He would point out what he thought, subject to higher opinion, were one or two defects. The first was on page 15, in the References to 14 & 15 Vic, c. 97. The Bill proposed to omit in the wording of Section 10, these words, "from and after the passing of this Act." He had examined that section several limes himself, and an hon. and learned Friend had been again over the ground with him, and they could not find any such words as those in the section. It was clear that there was some error; and if the intention of the Government was to abolish Section 10, there was some error again, because Section 10 was the section which they required in all these cases to appoint new trustees, and if the power of appointing new trustees went, the whole clause relating to trustees became clearly imperfect and the scheme wholly failed. He was sure there was an error here, and the only course which he could suggest to the Government was that these references to the 14th & 15th Vict. c. 92, should be removed from the Bill altogether. He thought it was very dangerous to leave them as they were, because as they stood they were entirely wrong, and he believed it was necessary to make the alteration he had ventured to suggest.

Amendment proposed, Schedule, page 15, line 52, to leave out from the words "Section ten," to the word "Act."—(Sir F. S. Powell.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY,) Forfar

said, he had not had the opportunity of going through this, and in the circumstances it had been their course to leave out anything that was very doubtful. He therefore agreed to leave out the words from "Section 10" to "Act," as moved by the hon. Baronet.

Question put, and negatived.

* SIR F. S. POWELL

said, the next Amendment which stood in his name, and which was to leave out "Section fourteen" to "Act," in page 15, line 53, of the Schedule, was really consequential upon the acceptance of his first Amendment.

Amendment proposed, Schedule, page 15, line 53, to leave out the words "Section fourteen," to the word "Act."—(Sir F. S. Powell.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

SIR J. RIGBY

said, he agreed that this was a purely consequential Amendment, and he accepted it.

Question put, and negatived.

* SIR F. S. POWELL

said, the next Amendment was to leave out "16 & 17 Vict. c. 134," at page 17, line 25, of the Schedule, to "were omitted," in line 28. This was really a matter of drafting, he thought, and if the Government thought it was not necessary he would not press it.

Amendment proposed, Schedule, page 17, line 25, to leave out "16 & 17 Vict, c. 134," to the words "were omitted," in line 28.—(Sir F. S. Powell.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

SIR J. RIGBY

said, he thought it was a mere matter of drafting, and that they must adhere to the words.

* SIR F. S. POWELL

said, in view of the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman he would not press it for a moment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

* MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

said, he desired to move an Amendment on page 28 of the Schedule. He ought to apologise for not having placed the Amendment on the Paper, but he had not had an opportunity of doing so. The Act proposed to abolish Clauses, 3,4, and 7 of the Bishopric of Truro Act. There was no doubt that in one aspect of these clauses they had a temporary character, but he maintained that though they had a temporary character, still they were also permanent in their nature, and should not be repealed.

Amendment proposed, in page 28, line 5, to leave out the words "sections three, four, and seven."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

SIR J. RIGBY

said, the hon. Member was under a great misapprehension as to the meaning of these Acts. The object was to keep out of the Statute Book anything that was superfluous. It was impossible that any wrong should be done, because the repeals were in every case subject to very careful conditions, and there was no possible right or obligation that could be affected by the repeal which was made here. Again, the object was to get rid of those superfluous and unnecessary matters which had had their effect and been spent. In the case dealt with by these clauses, the money had been paid, and there could be no possible operation in time to come of these particular clauses.

MR TOMLINSON

Money paid for endowments.

SIR J. RIGBY

That is so, no doubt, but every right is preserved here in the most ample manner. There are 600 or 700 Bills and Statutes dealt with here, and it is impossible for me from memory to speak positively of one taken out at random; but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is perfectly and absolutely impossible that any harm can be done, the reservation of rights in the Bill is so extensive. The rights of any new Bishopric cannot be affected. The rights are left exactly the same.

* SIR F. S. POWELL

We must be careful to see that no alteration is made affecting the working of the new Sees.

* SIR J. RIGBY

No substantial alteration of rights can take place.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

* SIR F. S. POWELL

said, they were now dealing with the whole of the shipping legislation, and it seemed to him a foolish thing that they should be passing a Bill abolishing all these old Statutes, and at the same time they should have this kind of abolition of one or two words only in this Bill. He appealed to the Government to cancel this reference to the Merchant Shipping Act. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.

Amendment proposed, Schedule, page 31, line 29, to leave out from the words "thirty-ninth and forthieth years of Victoria," to the words "seventy-six," in line 35, both inclusive.—(Sir F. S. Powell.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

* SIR J. RIGBY

said, here again there was a misapprehension as to the meaning of these Acts. When that Bill to which the hon. Baronet referred passed into law and it became an Act the whole of these Acts dealing with Merchant Shipping would disappear from the Statute Book by virtue of express supercession. They had no right, at this stage, to assume that the Bill would pass into law. They did not know that it would pass, though they expected it very confidently to become an Act.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

* MR. TOMLINSON

said, he desired to move an Amendment on page 45, line 29, which he regretted he had not been able to place on the Paper, so that the learned Attorney General might have had an opportunity of considering it. The Amendment dealt with the Truro Chapter Act, 41 & 42 Vict. c. 44, s. 2, which referred to the transfer of a Canonry to the Archdeaconry of Exeter. The words of the section were— The Canonry when vacant shall be annexed to the Archdeaconry of Exeter, and save as regards the change in favour of the Archdeaconry of Cornwall shall be subject to the same laws and customs, particularly those in respect of the income ceasing on the death of the Canon as the Canonry is subject to, which at the date of the vacancy is annexed to the Archdeaconry of Exeter. He was of opinion that it was not desirable to repeal those provisions—"The Canonry when vacant shall be annexed to the Archdeaconry of Exeter. "The annexation of the Canonry to the Archdeaconry of Exeter was a permanent change, and the recording Act should remain permanently on the Statute Book. It was not merely transitory in its nature. It gave legal effect to a transfer of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The Attorney General would say that all rights under the Bill were preserved, but still he did claim that a permanent change in ecclesiastical jurisdiction which was legalised by Statute ought to remain on the Statute Book.

Amendment proposed, in page 45, line 29, to leave out the words "section two."

Question proposed, "That the words 'section two' stand part of the Bill."

SIR J. RIGBY

said, that for some years past there had always been a note accompanying the Statute Law Revision Acts explaining the principle on which the Acts proceed in the case of Spent Acts. On page 4 there was the following note:— Enactments spent or exhausted in operation by the accomplishment of the purposes for which they were passed, either at the moment of their first taking effect, or on the happening of some event, or on the doing of some Act authorised or required. This Act was spent by the operation taking effect.

MR. TOMLINSON

But my objection is that it is not a spent clause.

SIR J. RIGBY

It is spent, if it operates at once.

MR. TOMLINSON

The operation is permanent.

Question put, and agreed to.

SIR J. RIGBY

said, he hoped he would be allowed to take the Third Reading now.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Sir J. Rigby.)

MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)

On that question, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Attorney General whether we may rely—we are at the end of the Session — upon the Amendments which have been made in the Bill being adhered to?

SIR J. RIGBY

Certainly, Sir; I have done nothing here except in consultation with those who will have charge of the Bill in another place.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.