Lords Sitting of 2 July 1857

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Christchurch (West Hartlepool).
2ª Sound Dues; Consolidated Fund (£8,000,000); Militia (Ireland) Act (1854) Amendment.
3ª Insurance on Lives (Abatement of Income Tax) Continuance; Town Byelaws Revision; Joint-Stock Companies Act Amendment.

ADMIRAL OF THE FLEET.—QUESTION.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that it having been customary that the senior Admiral in the service should succeed to the post of Admiral of the Fleet, it was naturally felt by the navy generally, and more expecially by the officer now at the head of the list, that it was hard the commission should have been filled up since
756
the death of Sir Byam Martin. It was a merely honorary commission, and fairly looked upon as a mark of distinction. It was therefore desirable to know whether it was intended to be filled up.
EARL GRANVILLEthought it detrimental to the public service when Parliament interfered with the Government as to the promotion or non-promotion of particular individuals. He should therefore, without meaning any disrespect to the noble Marquess, decline to answer his question.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid, that the office of Admiral of the Fleet was one of the few prizes in the profession, and it had always been the practice to appoint to this distinction. The appointment was regarded by the navy as a proper compliment from the Crown. This was the first time a vacancy had occurred without being filled up, and it was, he thought, worth the consideration of the Government whether they would not continue to appoint the oldest eligible member of the service to the post of Admiral of the Fleet, the salary attached to which was not more than £365 per annum.
LORD COLCHESTERsaid, that the post of Admiral of the Fleet was equivalent in rank to that of Field Marshal in the army. There had been two Field Marshals lately appointed, and he thought it was unjust to the navy that they should have no officer of corresponding rank in their service, although there was an opportunity of appointing one.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the Government were of opinion that there was no person particularly marked out at this moment to fill an office of this sort.

GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (CAPITAL) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.
  LORD ST. LEONARDS(who had previously presented three petitions from the holders of preference shares or stock against the Bill said, that although the Bill was one of a private character, it involved a question of great importance. Its object was, as their Lordships were no doubt aware, to provide for the loss caused by the forgeries committed by Redpath. That loss amounted to £220,000, and had been incurred in consequence of the neglect of the directors of the company, who had only to have opened the books to discover

  757
  the simple method by which these forgeries were perpetrated, namely, by placing a figure of 1 before any amount of stock transferred in the books of the company. Of course the directors were anxious to have that loss provided for; and when they discovered it, as they might have done long before, they made the proposal embodied in this Bill, which was to throw the whole loss upon the half-year's revenue of the company, as if it had been incurred in that half year. Now, there were different classes of shareholders in the company, some only of the ordinary description, and some preferential shareholders. Now, people invested their money in stock of the latter description, in the belief that their interest was guaranteed, and was as secure as if they had invested in the public funds. But if this Bill were passed, it would wholly deprive them of any interest for the half year ending in January last, because, while their loss was what he had stated, the revenue for that half year was a little above a quarter of a million, and as that would be nearly exhausted in meeting these losses, the preference shareholders would get no dividend. Now, there was no reason whatever why a loss which was discovered but not sustained in one half year should be charged exclusively upon the revenue for that period. If the loss had been discovered in the half year in which it occurred (as it might have been), it might have been paid without diminishing the receipts of the preference shareholders, while further loss would have been prevented. The preference shareholders, according to every construction of the contract under which they held their shares, had a right to be paid in the first instance, and they ought to be so paid; and then all the revenue above their claims, which under ordinary circumstances would have gone to the ordinary shareholders, should be applied to meet the loss to which he had referred. The propriety of taking this course was strengthened by the fact that, although frauds and forgeries had been committed, they did not legally bind the company, which was, in fact, merely paying the loss which had accrued out of policy, and in reference to the effect of a contrary course upon the dealings in shares on the Stock Exchange.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEsaid, although it was not his intention to oppose the second reading of the Bill, he thought that if passed in its present state, it would
  758
  do a great injustice to the preference shareholders. He was himself a preference shareholder, and would suffer a considerable loss in the matter.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2ª accordingly, and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Lords Committees appointed for proposing Committees on opposed Bills.

ADULTERERS' MARRIAGES BILL.

  SECOND READING NEGATIVED.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD REDESDALE, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said that, its object was to remove the objection which had been taken to one of the Amendments moved during the recent discussion of the Divorce Bill, that it would be unjust to require an injured husband or wife to be married before a registrar, or on the other hand, that the clergy of the Church of England should be called on to perform the marriage service in the case of parties who had been divorced. Remedies were proposed in various shapes, which were opposed, but not on any objection to the principle, and by the present Bill he sought to meet the various grounds on which the remedies had been rejected. The first objection was, that it would be an injustice to the innocent parties to a divorce suit, that they should be obliged to have recourse to a marriage before the registrar. He proposed to remove that objection by confining such marriages to the guilty parties. He simply proposed to enact that the marriage of persons who had been divorced on account of their own adultery should take place at a registry-office. The effect of this would be that the parties could, if they pleased, have the religious ceremony performed afterwards, but it would not be compulsory upon any clergyman to celebrate their marriage. They must find some person who had no objection to perform such a ceremony, and whose conscience, therefore, would not be violated by its performance. He did not think that this would impose hardship upon any one; on the contrary, it would afford great relief to those to whom other wise a great injury would be done. It had been said that hitherto no clergyman had objected to marry divorced persons; but no great weight was to be given to this objection, because the cases in which such

  759
  marriages had taken place were but few, and it was only during the discussion of the measure now before Parliament that this question had taken a deep hold of the public mind. Under these circumstances, he moved that the Bill should be read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he thought there were a great many reasons why their Lordships should not agree to the Motion of his noble Friend, but surely it was an all-sufficient reason that he was now proposing for the fourth time that which had, within the last two or three weeks, been three times rejected by their Lordships. A proposal of precisely the same effect was made while the Divorce Bill was under their Lordships' consideration. Indeed, that proposal had the advantage of this measure, because it was more consistent, and met the whole case. This Bill only went half-way. It was said that a great number of clergymen considered marriage indissoluble, and therefore ought not to be called upon to re-marry any person who had been divorced, whether innocent or guilty. The Amendment moved by the noble Earl to his left (Earl Nelson) went to that extent, and therefore, if assented to, would have removed the whole of this, as he believed, imaginary grievance. It was three times decided by their Lordships that it was not right to interfere in such a case, and that he thought, was of itself a sufficient reason why this Bill should not be read a second time. There were, however, other reasons which would, he hoped, induce their Lordships to pause before assenting to anything which would establish so strange a precedent as that involved in this Bill. His noble Friend proposed that a certain form of marriage should be adopted for persons who had been divorced. Suppose the Bill now before the House of Parliament did not pass into a law, the consequence would be that, as the only divorced persons known to the law were those divorced by the ecclesiastical courts, all such persons might go before the registrar and marry, and if they were indicted for bigamy might justify their marriage under the provisions of this Bill. It was true that that objection might be removed by altering the wording of the measure; but how would this Bill apply to marriages dissolved by special Acts of Parliament which allowed divorced persons to marry again without
  760
  specifying any form of marriage? The matter would, he admitted, be open to argument, but he believed that the effect of this Bill would be to alter the provisions of all previous Acts which had authorized marriage in any mode. If the Bill now before the other House did not pass, this measure would have no effect upon subsequent Acts of Parliament dissolving marriages, because when such an Act said that it should be lawful for the parties to marry again, that would mean as other persons could. In fact, this enactment would not operate on any known status, except marriages dissolved by the Ecclesiastical Court, and it was in fact, a clause or "rider" on the other Bill, the enactment of which had been already negatived three times. Under these circumstances he hoped their Lordships would refuse to give a second reading to this Bill.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this Day Six Months.")
  LORD CAMPBELLthought the proposal of the noble Lord wholly unparliamentary and unprecedented. A Bill which embraced the whole of this subject, and from which this provision had been excluded, had been agreed to by their Lordships and sent down to the other House, and was about to be taken into consideration there. If the other House thought this particular provision a fair and just one they would no doubt insert it in the Bill; but it would be a very extraordinary mode of procedure to send down a rider to that Bill in the shape of a proposition which their Lordships had already rejected two or three times. He was very much surprised that his noble Friend, the great Lord of order in their Lordships' House, to whom they all looked up in matters of procedure, should have made such a proposition.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, that if on any point of order, as had been stated by the noble and learned Lords, there were a constitutional objection to the Bill proposed by the noble Lord, it would, of course, be unnecessary and improper to urge it upon their Lordships: but he must express his earnest hope that, in this or some other mode, either in this or in the other House, some relief might be afforded to the clergy, who were seriously affected by the matter to which it referred. There was nothing in the principle of the Bill in question which compromised their Lordships or interfered

  761
  with what they had already determined—nothing which was inconsistent with their conduct on other occasions. It was now twenty years since some of those who dissented from the Church made a loud and earnest complaint that they were forced to celebrate their marriages according to a service which differed from their religious opinions; Parliament judged the complaint to be reasonable, and gave a remedy—a remedy which completely altered the whole law of marriage. The clergy of the Church now complain that they might be obliged by law to perform a service which they believed to be inconsistent with the Divine command. He would not now discuss the question whether they give a right interpretation to the Scripture; but he maintained that, as long as the same words remained in Scripture, there would always be many who would so interpret them. Surely it was not unreasonable to require that persons contracting marriage under the circumstances contemplated in the Divorce Bill now before the Commons House should be satisfied with a civil contract, content with the privilege of a legal marriage and a legitimate issue. The case became much stronger by the nature of the marriage service. He was unwilling to allude more particularly to that service; indeed, it could hardly be done in connection with this subject without the appearance of profaneness. But their Lordships would remember that the service assumed, in solemn terms, the Divine approval of the marriage, even that it was divinely ordered. It was true that charity hopeth all things; but it passed the bounds of charity to pronounce, ex cathedrâ, the Divine approval of a marriage which had its origin in a guilty passion, and was brought about by a heinous crime. For these reasons he trusted that a new obligation might not be imposed upon the clergy which they could not fulfil without doing violence to their conscience; but that, either through this present Bill, or in some future clause of the Marriage and Divorce Bill, a remedy would be found.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, it was not denied that there was a great grievance in compelling the performance of the marriage service by the clergy in these cases, and there could be no such hardship if this Bill passed. It would act as a relief to those who entertained conscientious objections on the subject, and would prevent that wantonness of tyranny which would compel the clergy to perform these
  762
  marriages against their conscience. Under these circumstances he felt it his duty to take the sense of the House upon the measure.
  On Question, that "now" stand part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:—Contents 23; Not-Contents 62: Majority 39.
  Resolved in the Negative; and Bill to be read 2ª on this Day Six Months.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Archbp.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Manchester, D.

  Melville, V.

  Bath, M. [Teller.]

  Chichester, Bp.

  Salisbury, M.

  Durham, Bp.

  Kilmore, &c., Bp.

  Belmore, E.

  London, Bp.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Oxford, Bp.

  Nelson, E.

  Powis, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Crewe, L.

  Talbot, E.

  Downes, L.

  Ravensworth, L.

  Doneraile, V.

  Redesdale, L. [Teller.]

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Cranworth, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Campbell, L.

  Churchill, L.

  Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Claneboye.)

  Cleveland, D.

  Somerset, D.

  Colchester, L.

  Dartrey, L. (L. Cremorne.)

  Breadalbane, M.

  Exeter, M.

  Digby, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Townshend, M.

  Granard, L,. (E. Granard.)

  Abingdon, E.

  Hatherton, L.

  Airlie, E.

  Hunsdon, L. (V. Falkland.)

  Burlington, E.

  Clarendon, E.

  Leigh, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Lyndhurst, L.

  Derby, E.

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

  Essex, E.

  Fortescue, E.

  Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

  Granville, E.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Munster, E.

  Panmure, L.

  Spencer, E. (L. Steward.)

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) [Teller.]

  Stanhope, E.

  Zetland, E.

  Raglan, L.

  Rivers, L.

  Combermere, V.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Falmouth, V.

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Hardinge, V.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Sydney, V.

  Saint Leonards, L.

  Stuart de Decies, L.

  Ardrossan, L. (E. Eglintoun.)

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Aveland, L.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Berners, L.

  Truro, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Wensleydale, L.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Wycombe, L. (E. Shelburne.)

  Camoys, L.

  ADULTERERS' MARRIAGES BILL.
  Die Jovis, 2° Julii, 1857.

  PROTEST
  Against the Rejection of the Bill.
  DISSENTIENT—"Because many of the clergy conscientiously object to declare in the words of the Marriage Service the union of a divorced adultress with her paramour 'holy matrimony, signifying the mystical union betwixt Christ and his Church,' and to pronounce over such union our blessed Lord's words, 'Those whom God hath joined together let no man put asunder;' and it is unjust to leave them subject to penalties for refusing to be guilty of what they believe to be an act of impiety, when relief can be afforded without injury to any principle or person in the manner proposed by this Bill.
  "REDESDALE."

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHARITIES BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order.)
  On Clause 1.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, that, after the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, the Roman Catholic charities had been put upon the same footing as those of other Dissenters. He should be sorry to see the Act of George II., which applied to all charities, of whatever denomination, altered. The relief given to one class of Dissenters ought to be given to all. The Roman Catholics ought not to be allowed to occupy a higher ground than other Dissenters. The Bill, in fact, asked their Lordships to reverse a decision of Lord Cottenham on the construction of the Statute of Charitable Uses in reference to property left to Roman Catholic charities. The Bill provided that if any property had been left to any Roman Catholic charity, which had been unquestioned for twenty-five years, it should be no longer open to question. Property which had been long in possession of Dissenters had been taken away under the old law. That was thought a great hardship, and in 1844 an Act was passed which confirmed the title to property which had been held by one body undisturbed for a certain number of years. The contest was between Trinitarians, who sought to recover endowments which had for a long time been enjoyed by Unitarians. But the question here was wholly different. Not a contest between two classes claiming the same subject, but a question of the abstract validity of gifts of property for certain religious and charitable purposes. It might be advisable
  764
  to regulate Roman Catholic charities, but this was not the right mode of doing it. Where there was evidence of good faith, it was right to relieve trustees from responsibility, but this Bill gave legal validity to all their actions; that is to say, it gave legal validity to all applications of property to superstitious uses which had existed for the last quarter of a century. Besides, a Bill had already been sent up from the other House, for the purpose of benefiting Dissenters of all classes, by enlarging the provisions of the Act of George II. This would be applicable to Roman Catholics as well as Protestant Dissenters. It provided for the very same objects to which this Bill was addressed. He would suggest that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, and that the other Bill should be referred to the same Committee, not as approving of the latter Bill in any way, but simply that the Committee should see what was proposed to be done in regard to the relief of Dissenters generally from the provisions of the Act of George II.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the Bill was by no means of a complicated character, and could be quite as well disposed of by the House as by a Select Committee. If the Bill were sent to a Select Committee, it would be necessary to refer the other Bill to the same Committee, and he could see no reason for any such, reference. The object of the Bill was simple, and the whole of it was contained in four clauses. With regard to Roman Catholic charities, these were charities which had necessarily been conducted secretly and illegally. It could not be otherwise. The first clause removed certain doubts that had arisen, and the second gave time for putting these charities into a legal shape, which under the statute of George II. must be done within six months from the commencement of the trust. There were many charities of which all were illegal when they were created, but of which now some were legal and others illegal. For instance, a man might leave some money for schools and some for masses—part of this was legal and part illegal, and it was the object of the third clause to enable the courts to decide how much of this was legal and how much illegal. The last clause provided that when a Roman Catholic charity had been administered in a manner which was legal for other Dissenters, it should be legal also for Roman Catholics. They

  765
  should not rip up old contests as to the terms of superstitious or not superstitious as applied to certain actions. There was the whole of the Bill, and it would be useless to refer such a Bill to a Select Committee. As to the other Bill to which the noble Lord referred, the two Bills might be united, but he thought that the Bill should be left in his hand.
  LORD CAMOYSsaid, that as a Roman Catholic he believed it would be satisfactory to his co-religionists if the Bill were referred to a Select Committee.
  THE DUKE OF NORFOLK, also, thought that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. It was kindly meant, but not acceptable in its present form. He had a number of Amendments to propose, and he believed other noble Lords intended to propose alterations. These could be much better considered up-stairs than in the whole House.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that as such seemed to be the opinion of the Roman Catholic Peers he would consent to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.
  Bill reported, without Amendment, and referred to a Select Committee.
  The other Bill was read pro formâ a second time, and referred to the same Committee.

SOUND DUES BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, in moving that your Lordships give a second reading to a Bill for carrying into effect a convention between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Denmark, with regard to the Sound Dues, it will not be necessary for me to detain your Lordships at any length; but I think some observations are necessary for the information of your Lordships, in order to explain the circumstances which have led to the negotiations terminating in that convention. The Sound Dues, as your Lordships are aware, arose, and the right to collect them has been exercised, from that inherent right winch every Sovereign Power possesses to impose taxes within its own territory and jurisdiction, and to impose duties on the commerce carried on within its dominions; a right which has been at all times acknowledged by all maritime nations, and has been recognised as a principle of international law for upwards of 300 years. The first treaty between England and Denmark on the subject
  766
  of these dues was entered into in 1491. At that time the imposition of these dues was a matter of small moment; but as commerce increased the inconvenience of the tax became more and more felt, and therefore for many years past attempts have been made to get rid of it by means of a compromise. At the beginning of last year the Government of the United States gave notice to the Danish Government that they would not pay the tax any longer. In consequence of the announcement communications took place with the Governments of other countries interested in the question, and a conference was held at Copenhagen, when the Danish Government proposed to abolish the tax for a consideration of £3,890,000, to be apportioned among the different maritime States according to the average annual amount of tax they had paid. This led to a treaty, which was signed last March, by which it was agreed that the proportion of the British Government should be £1,125,000, in consideration of which British commerce was for the future to be exempt from the Sound Dues. The Danish Government also agreed that the transit duties over the Holstein Railway should be reduced by four-fifths. That was a matter of considerable discussion, because the Danish Government denied the right of other States to interfere with the management of the Holstein railways, which they considered to be simply a matter of internal regulation. The other States, however, contended that they were entitled to insist on a reduction of these dues, inasmuch as they had been imposed for the purpose of compelling goods to be carried by way of the Baltic, instead of by the railways, and so protecting the collection of the Sound Dues. The result was that the Danish Government consented to the reduction of the transit dues by four-fifths. The amount that English commerce paid annually for these Sound Dues was £75,000, but that was by no means the most serious part of the inconvenience and loss. A Committee of the House of Commons sat last year, and examined a great number of witnesses, amongst them Her Majesty's Minister at Copenhagen, who stated that between the desertion of crews, the delays caused to the shipping, and the necessary payment of heavy local charges, added to the dues themselves, the loss incurred by England was not compensated for by less than £200,000 a year. I intend to trouble your Lordships with a very short extract

  767
  from the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons. The Report states:—
  "The Sound Dues, as they are levied at present, combine in them what is most objectionable in taxes that fall upon trade; they are unequal in their operation, and they occasion great loss of time, and much needless expenditure in the collection of a comparatively small revenue, and, as far as the cargoes are concerned, without professing to be raised for any service rendered in return, tend to impede and burden an important branch of trade. Under these circumstances your Committee have no hesitation in declaring that these dues are the cause of annoyance and injury to British commerce, and that they deem it highly desirable that they should be abolished. Your Committee think that the proposals made by the Danish Government to the Governments of the different States interested in the navigation and trade of the Baltic, among which Great Britain holds the first place, should receive immediate consideration, and become the foundation of a final and satisfactory settlement of the question."
  I ought to add, that the proposals of the Danish Government are those that have been accepted, and accepted by twelve or thirteen States, all having a direct interest in the matter. There is every reason to believe, therefore, that the proposals of the Danish Government were fair and reasonable, and also the apportionment of the indemnity amongst the Powers upon whose commerce those charges fall. At all events, I believe the arrangement will be most beneficial to British shipping, which is more concerned in the trade of the Baltic than that of any other nation. It is right to mention that the United States Government, which first took the lead in opposing the payment of these dues, and gave notice that, after a certain time, they should pay them no longer, entered into a treaty in April last with the Government of Denmark, agreeing to the arrangement entered into, and to the apportionment of the indemnity which the other States agreed to pay; and nothing can be more honourable and straightforward than the conduct of that Government in the negotiations. The Sound Dues ceased and determined from the first day of April last, although, owing to the necessary delay which had taken place—for, of course, no money could be paid without the sanction of Parliament—the matter could not be considered as finally adjusted. The Danish Government, however, acting in a generous spirit, have levied no tolls and offered no impediment whatever to our commerce since the 1st of April in the present year. I have only one other fact of any importance to communicate to your Lordships. My right hon.
  768
  Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been in communication with the Danish chargé d'affaires, and from him received a statement that it is not the intention of the Danish Government to have any portion of the money remitted to Denmark, but that for purposes of their own the whole of it will be invested in this country.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee(according to order).
  LORD PANMUREsaid, that this Bill was similar in principle to the Police Bill for England passed last Session. Some of the Scotch counties had a police force, but others had neglected to avail themselves of the opportunity, and the Bill enabled boroughs and districts to combine for the purpose of maintaining an efficient constabulary force. The Secretary of State would lay down rules as in England for the pay and clothing of the force, and the same proportion of one-fourth of the expenditure would be defrayed out of the public exchequer. A police committee was to be appointed in every county, and that committee would have the same powers in reference to the police as the justices of the peace in England. There was a clause in this Bill which was not in the English Bill, empowering police to be raised for the protection of great public works in course of construction. The Bill had been referred to a Select Committee of their Lordships, who had given valuable assistance in putting it into proper shape.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHconsidered that the Bill was of great importance to Scotland, where great inconvenience had been felt from the different systems which prevailed.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, no doubt this was an excellent Bill, and that Scotland was very much indebted to his noble Friend for bringing it in. It was very creditable to the Scotch Peers and Members of Parliament that they met and laid their heads together and came to a sensible decision upon Scotch Bills before they came under discussion in Parliament. As they were in Committee, he might say he hoped that occasion would be taken either

  769
  to abolish "rogue money" or to give it a more creditable name. He remembered, for example, that when a monument was erected to a most meritorious public servant, the balance that remained to be defrayed was paid out of "rogue money." Upon another occasion the dinner bill of some Commissioners was defrayed out of the same questionable source.
  Amendments made; the Report thereof to be received on Tuesday next.
  House adjourned at a Quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, Half-past Ten o'clock.