Lords Sitting of 24 June 1856

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—la Sardinian Loan; Seamen's Savings Banks.
2a Sleeping Statutes; Oath of Abjuration Amendment.
3a West India Loans.

JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) (on Re-commitment).
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he did not mean to offer any Amendment on this Bill, although, as to the Limited Liability Bill, he confessed he had his misgivings as to the adoption of that principle. He did not, however, agree in all the objections urged against the measure by his noble Friend

1891
behind him (Lord Overstone); nor was he, on the other hand, so sanguine as to suppose that this measure would give rise to a new California. He was disposed to think that the anticipations of those who supported the Bill would be disappointed. He hoped that not serious mischief would arise from it, but he certainly did not expect any considerable benefit from it.
LORD OVERSTONErepeated his leading objections to these measures of the Government, but was almost inaudible. He said, that he thought the Government had incurred a serious responsibility in thus disturbing the relations that had hitherto existed between debtor and creditor; and, commenting on the exception of banking and insurance companies from the operation of the Bill, asked the noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade how he understood this Bill proposed to deal with companies associated together for these purposes? The Government, by this measure, were about to draw what he believed to be an unjust distinction between banking and the general commercial transactions of the country. He was desirous of knowing what class of companies was to be endowed with the privileges of limited liability, and what class of companies was to be exempted from the advantages of the new system?
LORD STANLEY Of ALDERLEYsaid, he was prepared to admit that the exemption of banking and assurance companies was somewhat opposed to the principle of the Bill. But those companies were excepted from the Joint-stock Companies' Act; and, although this Bill proposed to amend that Act, it was not proposed to make any alteration in this particular. He thought that there were many reasons why banking companies should be excepted, for they were subject to peculiar regulations. Up to this moment no difficulty had been experienced by the absence of a definition as to what constituted a banking company, and he saw no reason to apprehend why greater difficulty should now he experienced in courts of law in making this definition.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, the real question was this, whether there was any practical difference introduced in the relative position of banking companies in the present Bill from the previous state of the law? If there were such difference, it furnished an additional motive for caution on this subject. At the present moment there was an advertisement in the public papers, setting forth the operations of a
1892
future company with the view of claiming the advantages of the law of limited liability, and to all intents and purposes those were banking operations.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, any objection of the kind came inappropriately from the noble Lord, because he had succeeded, in the present Session, in carrying a Bill legalising the practice of crossed cheques. It was very well known that the law, as it at present stood, would not permit more than six persons to establish a banking concern, except they were incorporated. As to the definition of a banking company, there was always a difficulty in making definitions when you came to the extreme line; and if they were to wait for a clear definition before they legislated, they would soon come to a dead lock.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL,referring to an observation of Lord Overstone, on his (the Duke of Argyll's) speech on a previous discussion of this Bill, denied that the arguments he had then advanced had been brought forward in a spirit of levity. Those arguments were, he contended, strictly logical, and he was ready to repeat them. The noble Lord had frequently admitted that there was no reason whatever why an individual should not bargain as to the degree of liability which he would incur in any matter of business; and the whole question now was, whether you should enable persons to make that bargain more easily than they did before. On the other hand, however, the noble Lord declared that persons should be liable "to the utmost extent" for all their liabilities. Now, he (the Duke of Argyll) admitted that persons must be responsible to the extent to which they bargained to be responsible; but beyond that he did not think the Government had any right to bind them.
On Clause 18,
LORD OVERSTONE(who was almost inaudible) again protested against the course adopted by the Government; and urged that it was not right that the Legislature should refuse to impose any safeguards upon Joint-stock Companies, but leave every man to the exercise of his own discretion. The noble Lord having read Lord Ashburton's description of the panic of 1825, contended that similar results might be anticipated if the House persisted in sanctioning this measure; and warned their Lordships that when the crisis arrived—as it might do even in a more exaggerated form than then—it was not the imprudent, the rash, and the foolish only who would

1893
suffer; but that the innocent, and even the careful would be necessarily drawn into a vortex from which they could not escape.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that the account which the noble Lord had read of the occurrences of 1825 was truly descriptive of the evils of excessive speculation; but he begged to remind their Lordships that all those evils existed under the present law; and it proved that the paternal system of legislation which the noble Lord recommended was not the wisest that could be adopted; but that, instead of treating the whole public as children who could not take care of themselves, it was better to leave these matters to the judgment of the public, who would then act like grown-up, sensible men, and would not be deluded by the false security supposed to be imposed by a number of fallacious restrictions which did no good, but, as he believed, encouraged and created the frauds which they were supposed to prevent. The principle of limited liability was no new one; it had been conceded already by three successive Parliaments, and he called upon their Lordships now to make the proposed attempt, and not to be deterred by descriptions of results which had accrued from rash and desperate speculation.
Clause agreed to.
Amendments made; the Report thereof to be received on Thursday next.

FACTORIES BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order).
On Clause 4,
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY,remarking that the words of the clause were doubtful, asked whether it was intended to continue to males above eighteen years of age the same protection which they enjoyed under the existing Act? The present clause appeared to limit the protection to females and young children. Now, he (the Earl of Shaftesbury) thought that no class was more exposed to injury from mill-gearing than this class of half grownup lads. He thought that the vague and indefinite manner in which horizontal machinery was mentioned would lead to confusion and dispute. It would be far better to introduce words to the effect that all such machinery should be not less than seven feet from the floor.
THE EARL OF DERBYobserved, that the Bill did not touch machinery at all. Its sole object was to place mill-gearing
1894
on the same footing as machinery. In many of the older factories a large portion of the horizontal machinery was at a less height than seven feet from the floor, and yet it was perfectly secure. He did not think, therefore, that there was any necessity for enacting that such machinery should in all cases be seven feet from the floor; and he might remind their Lordships that the words in the Bill relating to horizontal shafting were introduced after mature deliberation, and with the sanction and approval of the Home Secretary. The Bill would not deprive male adults of any real protection which they enjoyed under the present Act. The effect of the Bill as a whole was, that it relieved the manufacturer from fencing that portion of his gearing which young persons were not liable to approach, and which the inspector had not declared to be dangerous; while, on the other hand, it extended to mill-gearing the penalties for non-compliance with the Act which now applied to machinery only. It also gave to workmen the liberty of bringing an action for any accident caused by the gearing or machinery, and it provided that penalties might be inflicted for non-compliance with the Act, whether an accident occurred or not. The terms of the clause had been arranged between the manufacturers and the Secretary of State; and therefore it would not be altered by their Lordships.
Bill reported, without Amendment, and Bill to be read 3a on Friday next.

POLICE (COUNTIES AND BOROUGHS) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Further Amendments made.
THE EARL OF POWIS THE EARL OF POWIS moved the insertion of a clause giving to the magistrates increased powers with respect to the appointment and suspension of police constables.
LORD WROTTESLEYexpressed himself in favour of such a clause.
LORD PANMUREopposed the Motion, and said, that the Government could have no objection whatever to a committee of the magistracy meeting to inquire into and report upon the finance and other matters relative to the police force of counties and boroughs, and transmitting the result of their labours to the Secretary of State. But he thought it would be a course attended with great inconvenience if the

1895
magistrates were permitted to exercise constant control and superisvion over the force.
After a few words from Lord BERNERS,
Amendment negatived.
Bill to be read 3a on Friday next.

SLEEPING STATUTES BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL FORTESCUE, in moving the second reading of this Bill, observed that the statutes with which it proposed to deal were 120 in number, extending over a period of about 500 years—from 13 Edw. I. to the 17 Geo. III. A cursory view of the titles of those statutes would, he was sure, satisfy their Lordships that they ought not at this time to form part of the law of England. Those statutes had been condemned by the Statute Law Commission, and this Bill had, he believed, passed the other House without a word of dissent from any quarter. There was this danger attending these obsolete laws, that, although they might be permitted for a long time to slumber, they could at any period be called into pernicious activity. On these grounds he begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
Moved—That the Bill be now read 2a.
LORD CAMPBELLgave his hearty concurrence to the measure, observing that while the common law held a statute, no matter how old or disused, to be in use unless repealed by the same power that called it into existence, the civil law held that any law that had fallen into desuetude lost all force and became extinct. This Bill would help to purge the Statute-book from a mass of excrescent legislation, and the noble Lord was entitled to the thanks of the public for introducing it.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that a noble Lord having asked him whether he intended to propose that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, he had replied in the negative; and for this reason, that the measure had already undergone the full consideration of the Statute Law Commissioners, in order that it might have been introduced with several other Bills which they had in preparation, and which would, he hoped, be ready to be laid on the table before the end of the Session. The object of the Commissioners had been to discover all those effete enactments which were a disgrace to our Statute-book, with a view to their repeal;
1896
but it was necessary to include within the same category not merely entire statutes that were practically obsolete, but all the parts of statutes of the same character. This task was, however, found to be so great that it was deemed better not to delay the introduction of the present measure until it had been completely achieved. Such a postponement would have made this a "sleeping Bill;" and it had, therefore, been thought inexpedient. The measure had his entire concurrence; and, under the circumstances which he had described, he believed that to send it to a Select Committee would be a sheer waste of valuable time.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, while he abstained from opposing the Bill after the explanation just given, was understood to protest against the passing of laws of the highest importance without the House being furnished with the documents and evidence on which they were based.
LORD MONTEAGLEsupported the measure; adding, that he hoped the Irish statutes, in similar cases, would undergo a similar deletion.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Friday next.

THE OATH OF ABJURATION AMENDMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF DERBY, in moving the second reading of this Bill said, that at that hour, and in that state of the House, he would not enter into any detailed statement. He did not, indeed, expect any opposition to the object he had in view; for, although the object which it was designed to effect would have been attained by a measure which was under consideration on the preceding evening, their Lordships had rejected that measure because it contained another proposal of which they had repeatedly expressed their disapproval. The present Bill, strictly limited as it was to the Amendment of the statute imposing the oath of abjuration, was not liable to any such objection, and deserved to be received with favour. Although some time ago he had come across a book in which it was stated that certain descendants of the Pretender were still alive and had been recently visiting their dominions in Scotland, he had no apprehension that those persons

1897
would presume to put forward any claim to the Crown of these realms. They were beings who had no other than a visionary existence. It was matter of notoriety that all the legitimate descendants of the Pretender were now defunct; and, this being so, to abjure them was a mockery. The oath being no longer necessary, it was desirable that it should be got rid of as soon as possible, and the more so, as many of their Lordships conscientiously objected to it, on the ground that it was not only superfluous but blasphemous.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he should not object to the second reading of the Bill, and offered his assistance to the noble Lord in making certain alterations necessary to its perfection. There could be no doubt that for a long time this oath had been a disgrace to the Statute-book, and he had been a painful sufferer in having to administer it, and even Judges had been affected by it. The Act required that the oath should be repeated aloud; and in the appointment last year of an eminent Judge to the bench (Mr. Justice Willes), on his being sworn in, when he came to the words in the abjuration oath requiring his abjuration of the descendants of the Pretender, that learned personage stopped short, and on his admonishing him, as in duty bound, he replied that he was abjuring the descendants of the Pretender in his heart; but the learned Judge was obliged to repeat the words audibly, or he would not have properly taken the oath, and would not legally have been able to exercise the functions of a Judge. He (Lord Campbell) desired to see this oath abolished, believing no oath was necessary beyond the oath of allegiance; but the Bill of the noble Earl in its present state was so botched an affair as had never before been sent down by that to the other House of Parliament. The noble and learned Lord criticised the construction of the Bill, and said it would be far better to enact the oath in the precise form in which it was to be taken, than to enact that certain words should be added to, and certain words omitted from the existing oath. Unless that was done, much inconvenience might arise on administering it. The House of Commons would be more inclined to entertain the question in that form than in the form prescribed in the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEthought that, considering sthe circumstances of the moment at which this Bill was in-
1898
introduced, and the result of the debate of the previous evening, it would place that House in most offensive antagonism with the other House of Parliament. Unless the measure were materially altered in Committee, he should at some future stage move its rejection.
THE EARL OF WICKLOWopposed the Bill; but, he said, on different grounds from those taken by the two noble Lords who had just spoken.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that he had been induced to put his Bill in its present shape, by a desire to avoid a conflict with the other House of Parliament. Had he adopted the course recommended by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Campbell) the words "on the true faith of a Christian" would, in all probability, not have been re-enacted by the House of Commons, and the Bill would have been lost. The course which he had taken would effect the abrogation of an unnecessary and, therefore, improper oath without calling attention to those special words with which their Lordships were not disposed to part; and he hoped that the House of Commons would not seek an unnecessary conflict, by rejecting a Bill which effected an object which all desired, because it did not make other changes upon which there was a difference of opinion between the two Houses of Parliament.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a, accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Friday next.
House adjourned to Thursday next.