Lords Sitting of 12 August 1850

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—la Crime and Outrage Act (Ireland) Continuance; London Bridge Approaches; Savings Banks (Ireland).
2a Spitalfields and Shoreditch New Street; General Board of Health (No. 3); Medical Charities (Ireland); Friendly Societies; Transfer of Improvement Loans (Ireland); Law Fund Duties (Ireland).
Reported.—Westminster Temporary Bridge; Portland Harbour and Breakwater; Customs; Assessed Taxes Composition; Stamp Duties (No. 2); Assizes (Ireland).
3a National Gallery (Edinburgh); Duke of Cambridge's Annuity; Marlborough House; Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland); Poor Relief; Police Superannuation Fund.

PORTLAND HARBOUR AND BREAKWATER BILL.
The EARL of CARLISLE The EARL of CARLISLE moved that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, he objected to the Bill, because it was opposed by the great majority of the inhabitants of the island, and because it would deprive them of their rights and property in a manner quite unprecedented. He should move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
The EARL of CARLISLEdefended the Bill.
On Question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Motion,
Their Lordships divided:—Contents 18; Not-Content 6: Majority 12.

List of the CONTENTS.

Lord Chancellor

Leitrim

DUKES.

Minto

Grafton

Strafford

Leinster

BISHOP.

Wellington

Norwich

MARQUESSES.

BARONS.

Clanricarde

Beaumont

Lansdowne

Campbell

EARLS.

Eddisbury

Carlisle

Foley

Granville

Sudeley

Grey

List of the NOT CONTENTS.

Lord Chancellor

Minto

DUKES.

St. Germans

Grafton

BISHOPS.

Leinster

Chichester

MARQUESSES.

Norwich

Clanricarde

BARONS.

Donegal

Beaumont

Lansdowne

Campbell

EARLS.

De Freyne

Carlisle

Dufferin

Grey

Eddisbury

Granville

Elphinstone

Fingall

Foley

Leitrim

Resolved in the Affirmative. House in Committee accordingly.
Bill reported without amendment.

MEDICAL CHARITIES (IRELAND) BILL.
The EARL of LUCANsaid, this Bill stood for a second reading to-night, and, as it only came up from the House of Commons on Saturday, he wished to ask the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde) whether he intended to proceed with it at this late period of the Session? The measure was one of considerable importance, and he would suggest its postponement until next Session, as it would be impossible for their Lordships to consider it before the rising of the House.
Several Noble LORDS also concurred in the expediency of postponing the measure.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEcould not press the Bill against the almost unanimous request of their Lordships. He was perfectly ready to yield to the desire which had been expressed, at the same time throwing the responsibility of postponing the Bill on the noble Lords who had called for it. When consenting that the Bill should not be proceeded with so as to pass this Session, he hoped their Lordships would not object to its being read a second time as a matter of form. The principle of the measure he believed to be good, namely, to combine local management with central supervision. By combining and consolidating the medical charities of Ireland, a very large saving might be effected; and the Bill on their Lordships' table was calculated to give satisfaction to the people of Ireland, to the proprietors of different charities, and, he could not avoid adding, to the medical profession of that country. Several petitions had been presented in favour of the Bill, and not one, as far as he was aware, against it. But he agreed with the noble Earl that it could not be properly urged forward by the Government at that stage of the Session.
The EARL of LUCANsaid, there could be no objection to giving the Bill a second reading, provided it went no further. It was a measure that had been very imperfectly considered in the House of Commons; and if there was one Bill more than another which deserved to be carefully considered, it was that Bill.
LORD REDESDALEthrew the responsibility of postponing the Bill upon the

1013
Government, who had impeded and delayed its progress in the House of Commons. Bill read 2a.

SUMMARY JURISDICTION (IRELAND) BILL.
Bill read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments.
The EARL of LUCANsaid, that some legislation was necessary with respect to the practice which had become so prevalent in Ireland of carrying away crops. He now intended to propose an additional clause intended to repress that crime. But, first, he would take the opportunity of denying a report which had been circulated, that he was the author of the Landlord and Tenant Bill. He had had nothing to do with it, and was the only person on that side of the House who had objected to its provisions. He could not believe that if Her Majesty's Government were really in earnest in wishing to put a check to the system of depredation which prevailed in Ireland, they would be disposed to make any objection to the reasonable proposition he was going to make. He was at a loss to know what defence the Government could give of their conduct, in permitting the state of turbulence and violence, and the loss of life which prevailed last year, in consequence of large bodies of persons assembling to assist tenants in carrying off their crops, to continue without making any attempt to put a stop to it. It had been proposed in the House of Commons, during the debate upon that Bill, to assimilate the law of England and Ireland on the subject of landlord and tenant; and his proposition was, to insert a clause in the Bill giving the Irish proprietor the same protection which the English proprietor enjoyed. The noble Earl then read the clause, which was to the following effect:—
"And be it enacted, that if any tenant, lessee, or occupier of land, or any other person, shall knowingly and fraudulently take or carry away any goods or chattels from his land, in order to prevent any payment of rent, it shall and may be lawful for any landlord, lesser, or owner of the land, to exhibit a complaint against such tenant, lessee, or other person, before two justices of the peace, who may examine, convict, and in a summary way determine the same."
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEcould not consent to the insertion of the clause proposed by the noble Earl, though he would not then enter into an argument on the subject. The observation of the noble Earl referred to but part of a very
1014
great question, and it was impossible for Parliament to legislate wholly on one side of that question. It was one which should not be taken up piecemeal; and while care should be taken for one party, the interests, and, he might say, the rights of the other, should not be neglected. It would be necessary both for landlords and tenants that this subject should be considered next Session; and a most difficult one it would be found to be.
The EARL of GLENGALLsaid, the clause now proposed contained a summary of the law in England with regard to fraudulent tenants; and the same law had existed in Ireland until that most absurd of reports, the Devon Report, was issued, which recommended its abolition. The Commissioners had disagreed respecting that report; but, seeing that they must do something, they at last settled among themselves that the nostrums of each were to be agreed to. The settlement reminded him of the plan of putting a parcel of Motions into a hat, and adopting them according as they were drawn out. Now, the fact at present in Ireland was, that many of the tenants, with the view of evading the payment of rent, were removing their crops from one county into another. The question might be called a landlord and tenant one; but, in his opinion, it would be found a poor-rate question, a county-cess question, and a question greatly affecting the petty creditors of the fraudulent farmers. Was this state of things to be permitted to continue until next February or March, and was Ireland to be kept quiet by allowing every man to rob his neighbour? He regretted to find that the tenant-right meetings now being held in Dublin were attended by many of the Presbyterian clergy, as well as by large numbers of Roman Catholic priests; and he concluded by deprecating the strong language which had been used in the House of Commons in the course of the late debates against the Irish landlords.
LORD REDESDALEapproved of the clause, though he considered it might endanger the safety of the Bill; and therefore he hoped his noble Friend would withdraw it. Still, he was so sensible of the merit of the principle involved in the clause, that if it went to a division he must support it.
The EARL of LUCANsaid, he should certainly divide their Lordships upon it, as he could not consent to relieve Her Majesty's Government from the responsibility

1015
which attached to them, arising out of the present state of things in Ireland.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, that the rejection of the clause at present might throw difficulties in the way of a just consideration of the whole case next Session. Still, the allusion of the noble Marquess with respect to piecemeal legislation came in the wrong place; because if they waited for a general system of legislation on the subject it would never come at all. He hoped the noble Earl would not press the clause to a division.
The EARL of LUCANsaid, the principle upon which the House of Commons had acted was the principle of communism, namely, to remove all protection from property. [Earl GREY: No, no!] He was not surprised at the interruption of the noble Earl, as his relative had opposed a similar proposal in the Commons. He wondered that he had sat silent so long.
EAEL GREYthought it perfectly clear that whatever might be done in another Session, the introduction of the clause now would only cause the loss of the Bill, upon which they were all agreed.
On Question, that the Clause stand part of the Bill,
Their Lordships divided:—Content 6; Non-Content 22: Majority 16.
Clause negatived.
The EARL of LUCANsaid, that he had another Amendment, and he could not allow the Bill to pass without giving their Lordships an opportunity of considering it. The noble Earl, adverting to the defective state of the law, and the evils that existed, the ejectments and the pulling down of houses, said, it could not be denied that such a system unfortunately prevailed, but it prevailed contrary to the wishes of the proprietors. The alteration he proposed was this: By the 31st clause jurisdiction was given to the justices over all houses and parts of houses, provided those houses were situated in any city, town, or village.
1016
Now, if it were proper to give this power over houses situated in any city, town, or village, why should it not be extended to houses in every part of the country? He could see no reason; and therefore he proposed to leave out the words "situated in any city, town, or village," the effect of which would be to extend the jurisdiction to houses all over the country. To a certain extent, this would assimilate the law of England and Ireland. He appealed to the noble Marquess, whether this proposition was not totally unobjectionable. If the noble Marquess saw fit to reject the Amendment, upon him he would place the responsibility of all the ejectments and pulling down of houses that might hereafter take place.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEsaid, that the Amendment moved by the noble Earl raised a question of landlord and tenant, which had nothing to do with this Bill. The noble Earl proposed to extend the jurisdiction to houses in all the rural districts; but the effect of that would be to include all the houses that were left for a calendar month—a result the noble Earl would scarcely desire. The Amendment of the noble Earl would give rise to a discussion on the whole question of landlord and tenant, and the present Bill was not intended to meddle with that subject.
The EARL of LUCANdefied the noble Marquess to bring forward a good reason for rejecting the Amendment. The noble Marquess's objection was, that it would bring the power into the rural districts; but he must ask his attention to the fact that the Bill applied to "villages;" and what were villages but rural districts? He complained that the noble Marquess would give no reasonable ground of objection to a reasonable proposition for amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

CRIME AND OUTRAGE ACT (IRELAND) CONTINUANCE BILL.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE moved the First Reading of this Bill, which had just been brought up from the House of Commons. The noble Marquess explained that the Bill was, in substance, the same as that which had already received their Lordships' assent; but, on its going down to the other House, it was discovered there that one of its clauses interfered with the privileges of that House. In

1017
consequence, that Bill was obliged to be laid aside; but another was at once brought in, which had since passed the Commons, and had now reached their Lordships' House. He begged to move that the Bill be read a first time, and to give notice that To-morrow he should move the suspension of the Standing Orders, for the purpose of passing the Bill without further delay.
Bill read 1a.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.
LORD BEAUMONT, in moving the Second Reading of the Friendly Societies Bill, expressed his regret that it should have come into the House at this late period of the Session; but, as their Lordships had had the opportunity on an antecedent occasion of discussing the subject, and as the most minute attention had been given in the other House to all the details of the measure, he hoped their Lordships would waive that objection. It was most important to avoid delay; for the principles upon which friendly societies were conducted, both in England and Ireland, were most anomalous, and required a speedy remedy. The amount of money invested in these societies, and the number of their members, were very large, and showed the great importance of the subject. According to a summary he held in his hand, there were actually 3,050,000 persons, or almost one to two of the whole adult male population. The annual revenue amounted to 4,985,000 l., and the accumulated fund to 11,360,000 l. The Bill introduced many improvements in the present law, and also made provisions with respect to the mode of conducting these societies, which he believed to be perfectly safe, as far as they went; and he thought they went as far as it would be safe to go. It was most important that the Bill should now pass forthwith; for if it were not at once to become law, there would be time for incalculable evils to arise before the Legislature could have again the opportunity of interposing to prevent them. Friendly societies were divided by the Bill into two classes, namely, registered societies and certified societies. The only power given to the former was the right to sue and be sued. This was necessary to prevent embezzlement of the funds by officers, or the withholding the sums due to rightful claimants. The Odd Fellows, the Foresters, &c. would be registered societies, as their tables could not be certified by an actuary;
1018
but he must, in justice to them, say, that they had taken great pains to have their tables based on sound calculations, since the report of their Lordships on the subject. The noble Lord concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
LORD REDESDALEwas extremely sorry the Bill had come before their Lordships so late in the Session, as it introduced a new principle into the management of friendly societies which ought to have been fully and maturely considered. To some of the details he objected; and he trusted their Lordships would pause before they assented to all of them, because it was quite possible that these societies might change their character and become converted from provident institutions into others of an objectionable, not to say dangerous, nature. He would not object to the second reading of the Bill; but he recommended that they should strike out all the clauses in which distinctions were drawn between registered and certificated societies. He hoped also that means would be adopted to get rid of secret signs in these societies.
LORD MONTEAGLEhoped the Bill would pass; there was much force in the objections which could be urged against some of its provisions. He should be very glad if the evils of the burial clubs, which had led to the spread of child murder to such a horrible extent, would be got rid of by some of the enactments of the Bill.
LORD BEAUMONTwould not pledge himself to make the alteration suggested, but consented to give notice for To-morrow, of a suspension of the Standing Orders, in order that the question might be considered in time to obtain the consent of the Commons, should the alteration be made.
Bill read 2a.

SECURITIES (IRELAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE moved the consideration of the report on this Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that his objections to the Bill had not been removed since the second reading. He contended that it involved a dangerous innovation of the principles by which the powers and functions of trusteeship had hitherto been regulated.
The EARL of GLENGALLconcurred partially in the view taken by the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, but

1019
thought it hard that trustees who had lent money on Irish properties should not have power to purchase, and thus to save the interests of their trust. The slaughter of Irish properties was so tremendous under the Encumbered Estates Court, that if trustees were not allowed a right of preemption, their mortgages would be perfectly valueless.
LORD BEAUMONTsupported the Bill.
LORD REDESDALEwas favourable to the principle of the Bill, as enabling the bonâ fide owners of property to obtain their rights in every part of the united kingdom. It was not to be borne, that in any part of the empire a return of six per cent and the best of all titles, a Parliamentary one, should be called an insecure investment for money.
The EARL of MINTOalso supported the Bill. He thought that the same principle that ruled in Yorkshire, with regard to investments in land, should be extended to Ireland.
After an observation from the Marquess of CLANRICARDE,
Report received. Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
House adjourned till To-morrow.